Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
Eurozone: Peston considers whether the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is over. Here's the last bit: "Or to put it another way, if the euro-area's leaders will not or can not use the current financial calm to push through a harder and more controversial political overhaul - which would inevitably see power shift from nations to the centre - then we may not have to wait many years to revisit potential euro catastrophe."
Pfizer’s already beaten Ed Miliband. Now it just needs to offer the right price
.....Pfizer chief Ian Read turns out to be a Scottish-born graduate of Imperial College London who has spent his entire career with the company. AstraZeneca, by contrast, is run by a Frenchman, Pascal Soriot, under a Swedish chairman, Leif Johansson, both parachuted in two years ago – reminders that Astra Zeneca is already a multinational with its research facilities divided between Cheshire and Sweden and less than 15 per cent of its workforce based in the UK.......
Ed Miliband’s verbiage about the need for powers to block bids that threaten ‘British jobs and science’ already looks like what it is: opportunism that reveals ignorance and antipathy towards business.
Agree with most on here - Helmer is a poor appointment and should reduce Kipper chances. Perhaps Farage thinks he can't win and wants Helmer as a fall guy - would be a clever move by Farage: Helmer has been hard to manage, to put it mildly.
The selection of Helmer helps Labour most. He's a candidate who will take some votes off the Tories, but I can't see him taking votes from Labour in the way that (say) Diane James might have done.
Yup. Helmer seems a very bad choice to me, based on the times I've seen him on TV. He's typical of the pre-2012 UKIP: stuffy, upper-class, big business-loving, elitist. The reason UKIP have done so well recently is that they've been projecting an image of being populist, down-to-earth, in touch with the working class.
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
That's broadly the position I'd take, if for no other reason than it works for other crimes. Obviously no two types of crime are totally the same: but they aren't entirely different either, and I fail to see what it is about rape that makes in not analogous in this sense. I don't see why advising people to reduce their risk needs to mean blaming them when the crime does occur, though I do accept that victim blaming happens far more in rape than other crimes so it is more of a problem and the distinction needs to be stressed more carefully.
Mr Helmer treads a fine line in his article between this position and actually suggesting the moral guilt is shared, I'd be inclined to suggest he tighten up his wording in future discussions on the topic.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Hopefully in favour of bringing it back
Amazes me how many people are so appalled by the prospect of a death penalty for convicted murderers or paedophiles but shrug at the bombing of innocent foreigners.
Who killed more innocent people, Tony Blair or the Electric chair?
Thin argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. I happen to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, but it's almost impossible to defend on certainty of guilt grounds (lots if innocent people would have hanged here were it still in force) and as a deterrent (little evidence it is one). It is also a lawyers charter and as such is incredibly expensive
Our current system does have the upside that Ian Brady has been kept alive against his will.
The selection of Helmer helps Labour most. He's a candidate who will take some votes off the Tories, but I can't see him taking votes from Labour in the way that (say) Diane James might have done.
Yup. Helmer seems a very bad choice to me, based on the times I've seen him on TV. He's typical of the pre-2012 UKIP: stuffy, upper-class, big business-loving, elitist. The reason UKIP have done so well recently is that they've been projecting an image of being populist, down-to-earth, in touch with the working class.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Because it's too soon to be aggressive. There isn't actually a specific proposal yet (which is why the European Court of Justice didn't allow the UK challenge).
Of course, if the UK does have to choose between the EU and the City, we should and probably will choose the City. Our EU friends should be left in no doubt about that.
Didn't you say something similar over the banker bonus cap?
I wonder if there will be any Lib Dem -> Conservative swing in Newark.
Obviously I'd expect Lib Dem -> Labour swing to outweigh it but with the Lib Dems having no chance and the race looking like it could go closish could be some Lib Dem -> Con switchers...
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
If we are to treat rape like burglary, then I still don't see how the victim ends up "to blame for" their being robbed. Their failure relates to some prior aspect, and we might say that they are fault for encouraging robbery in their area. But we must treat the robber himself as an autonomous human being, whose act of theft is distinct from those acts which preceded it.
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Reintroduction I think !
Though I suspect a lot of UKIP would support that, their current website doesn't actually mention it either way despite having a variety of 'old fashioned' crime policies (longer sentences and so on). I can't find a copy of the 2010 manifesto but the BBC 'at a glance' summary of it from the time mentions various crime policies but not the death penalty.
Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.
Obviously UKIP would be changing the 'EU' bit ;')
And the ECHR bit.
I have no moral objection to capital punishment. I just think it's probably more trouble than it's worth to reintroduce it.
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Just mimicking what happens to Scotland regularly in the UK and the reason we will be out come September.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
Didn't you say something similar over the banker bonus cap?
Yes, and, as I've said before, such moves by the EU are shifting the balance in favour of leaving the EU if we can't get them changed. This is one strong reason why the possibility of UKIP wrecking the renegotiation and referendum, by installing Ed in No 10, is such a disaster for the country.
I wouldn't reintroduce the death penalty (although I question myself when I hear about those involved with the sexual slavery of young girls), but we certainly should make much more of throwing someone in a cell on bread and water for decades. We certainly need to get rid of this stupid system where brutal armed robbers are kept in open prisons and let out for the weekend. Or people that get 50 previous convictions yet are still free men in their 20s. Or people that get less than a decade for violently raping schoolkids.
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
If we are to treat rape like burglary, then I still don't see how the victim ends up "to blame for" their being robbed. Their failure relates to some prior aspect, and we might say that they are fault for encouraging robbery in their area. But we must treat the robber himself as an autonomous human being, whose act of theft is distinct from those acts which preceded it.
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
The correct comparison would be if the householder hung some goods out of a window, with a sign saying "take my stuff", then yanking it back at the last minute shouting "only kidding."
Then complaining if someone actually managed to snatch something.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
"while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind."
Helmer's phrasing goes beyond the examples you gave, which is precisely why it is clumsy. Your examples make no mention of blame, but he specifically contrasts the second case with the first where "the blame is squarely on the perpetrator" thus implying that that in the second case the blame is shared.
Didn't you say something similar over the banker bonus cap?
Yes, and, as I've said before, such moves by the EU are shifting the balance in favour of leaving the EU if we can't get them changed. This is one strong reason why the possibility of UKIP wrecking the renegotiation and referendum, by installing Ed in No 10, is such a disaster for the country.
Unless I'm mistaken, you actually said we should leave if it went through. As it now has, despite a Tory PM.
Didn't you say something similar over the banker bonus cap?
Yes, and, as I've said before, such moves by the EU are shifting the balance in favour of leaving the EU if we can't get them changed. This is one strong reason why the possibility of UKIP wrecking the renegotiation and referendum, by installing Ed in No 10, is such a disaster for the country.
You do realise that, for the average person on the street, banking bonus caps and the like would be one of the best reasons to STAY in the EU?
In fact, I think that's one of the best arguments on the pro-EU side: arguing that sticking together in a club allows us to take on the global "Davos elite" of big businesses and the super-wealthy who think they can go to tax havens whenever they like and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab in our own countries, whereas if we were all just individual countries we wouldn't have the collective might to bring them into line. But the common argument pro-EUers make, "trade opportunities", is a very feeble argument, not to mention the offensive Cleggite mantra that anyone who wants to leave the EU is a small-minded bigot.
Wonder how long it will be until Shadsy feels "compelled" to put up a book on Roger Helmer's 1st Newark by-election blunder which leads to a public apology. Will it be his views on homosexuality? Perhaps the question of potential culpability of rape victims? Surely there must be a chance of one of his walkabouts resulting in him being confronted by a Newark voter who happens to be homosexual.
Unless I'm mistaken, you actually said we should leave if it went through. As it now has, despite a Tory PM.
You are mistaken. I have always said that we should try to renegotiate first, and that our number one priority in the renegotiation should be some kind of veto or other form of protection on the regulation of financial services.
Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis
SWEET JESUS !
Unbelievably stupid if that is a genuine account. UKIP really need to stop screwing about on this stuff. An email needs to go out to everyone working for them saying very clearly that X, Y and Z will not be tolerated, and will result in immediate sacking from the party. Yes, the media is biased against them, but that is the world they're in and they have to stop handing them easy goals.
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
If we are to treat rape like burglary, then I still don't see how the victim ends up "to blame for" their being robbed. Their failure relates to some prior aspect, and we might say that they are fault for encouraging robbery in their area. But we must treat the robber himself as an autonomous human being, whose act of theft is distinct from those acts which preceded it.
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
The correct comparison would be if the householder hung some goods out of a window, with a sign saying "take my stuff", then yanking it back at the last minute shouting "only kidding."
Then complaining if someone actually managed to snatch something.
We can put pressure on my distinction, but usually the (clichéd) argument is that moral blame attaches the woman who goes out dresses in such and such a way at night alone whilst drunk. Those are no more than the background circumstances for any attack on her and are more easily separated that even Helmer's example.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
You do realise that, for the average person on the street, banking bonus caps and the like would be one of the best reasons to STAY in the EU?
Only if they are half-wits who want to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Of course, they may be; many of them vote Labour, after all. Quite how they expect the NHS to be financed without the City is anyone's guess.
How about in the same way the NHS was financed in the 40 years prior to the 1980s, before "the City" took off? How about financing it using the money saved by not bailing out the feckless w/bankers?
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
Well said
Even if you accept this, it's still ridiculous that so much male discussion of the topic concentrates on this. Clearly such cases are a tiny, tiny fraction of all rapes, and it seems bizarre that there's such an obsession about finding hypothetical examples of when the victim is possibly to blame with this crime. It's never done with murder or theft, for example.
You do realise that, for the average person on the street, banking bonus caps and the like would be one of the best reasons to STAY in the EU?
Only if they are half-wits who want to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Of course, they may be; many of them vote Labour, after all. Quite how they expect the NHS to be financed without the City is anyone's guess.
How about in the same way the NHS was financed in the 40 years prior to the 1980s, before "the City" took off? How about financing it using the money saved by not bailing out the feckless w/bankers?
Fair enough Richard, but I really think its time that Cameron and Osborne came out and said precisely this, very firmly and very indisputably.
Well, I think they have made a big mistake over a period of several years in not speaking up sufficiently vigorously for the City. I can understand why they haven't, but I still think it's a mistake. We should be celebrating our most successful industry - the only major industry in which we have a world-class competitive advantage - rather than providing credibility to banker-bashing nonsense by appearing to agree with some of it.
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Just mimicking what happens to Scotland regularly in the UK and the reason we will be out come September.
Point of order, Mr. G., SCotland may well vote for independence in September but it won't "be out" as you put it for many months thereafter. Indeed if the SNP leader has his way it wont be until early 2016. A total nonsense in my view and a time table probably based on him needing time to work out how to cope with what he has brought about. Be that as it may Scotland will not "be out" in September this year.
Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis
SWEET JESUS !
Unbelievably stupid if that is a genuine account. UKIP really need to stop screwing about on this stuff. An email needs to go out to everyone working for them saying very clearly that X, Y and Z will not be tolerated, and will result in immediate sacking from the party. Yes, the media is biased against them, but that is the world they're in and they have to stop handing them easy goals.
Whilst we a re on the subject of no meaning no...
I am not sure whether O'Flynn means "No I don't know" or "No its not for real"
Rowena Mason @rowenamason 29m Is @UkipNewark for real? It has just tweeted this: "Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis"
It's never done with murder or theft, for example.
You are on dangerous ground when you start drawing analogies between sex crime and crimes of violence and or theft. Such an equation might imply, for example, that the special rules of evidence and procedure which apply for the purposes of increasing the number convictions in sex cases (but not in others) ought to be abolished.
"56% say the government should introduce rent controls – and the majority say governments should be more willing to intervene in markets generally"
Clever really. Old Labour trying to improve life for the average person ended up making them more conservative whereas New Labour allying with big business to destroy any kind of financial security at all let alone prosperity will successfully revive commiedom.
Yay! A prices and incomes policy! I remember one of those it was such a great success the first time around that I can't remember why we got rid of it. Also capital controls, lets have those back - we should not expect rich buggers to be able to take their money out of the country, fifty-quid a head should be enough for working folk to spend on their holiday. Well, all right, maybe inflation has got in the way and maybe £50 for a fortnight is no longer enough but whatever the amount is it should be decided by Mr. Milliband. He is the only person, lets face it, to decide how much you should be allowed to spend on your holiday, how much rent you should pay, how much electricity you can use and, frankly, how much you should pay for food.
However, times have moved on. Mr. Milliband does not want to return to the 1970s. You will therefore be forced to undergo state minimums of exercise, be barred from buying tobacco and have you booze rationed, unless you are on benefits.
Just to be clear I'm not saying I agree with rent controls just that I'm not surprised it's on 56% (and probably rising).
The ideal compromise Ukip line (imo) would be something like
"we don't agree with rent controls for blah blah reasons but we understand why people are getting desperate blah blah however if we get back control of our borders and stop 200,000 extra people every year then that should take a lot of the pressure off housing costs blah blah"
It's never done with murder or theft, for example.
You are on dangerous ground when you start drawing analogies between sex crime and crimes of violence and or theft. Such an equation might imply, for example, that the special rules of evidence and procedure which apply for the purposes of increasing the number convictions in sex cases (but not in others) ought to be abolished.
Only if you argue they are analogous in every regard. But it would seem bizarre to argue that the crimes have nothing in common, and thus no analogies are relevant.
Roger standing is so exciting.He may even get a part in a new Battle of Britain movie,playing a Polish pilot,one of many Poles who saved this country from the terrors of the nazis.
UKIP Newark @UKIPNewark 1h Here's our man... Roger Helmer will represent us in the upcoming by election. Exciting. #roger4newark #earthquake pic.twitter.com/hyTbmgRoAY
Why is the City and financial services a special case unlike Astra-Zeneca? Not wise too many eggs in one basket.
Actually that is a very good point, but I think in the opposite sense to what you intend. The City has been important to the UK since the 17th Century, but it really took off when Maggie removed obstacles to foreign takeovers of City institutions and removed other special protections.
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Just mimicking what happens to Scotland regularly in the UK and the reason we will be out come September.
Point of order, Mr. G., SCotland may well vote for independence in September but it won't "be out" as you put it for many months thereafter. Indeed if the SNP leader has his way it wont be until early 2016. A total nonsense in my view and a time table probably based on him needing time to work out how to cope with what he has brought about. Be that as it may Scotland will not "be out" in September this year.
Hurst , In spirit if not in body. Since we will soon after agree to work in a fashion similar to a federal union it will mean a minimum of change and a very gradual change indeed. There will be no big bang as it is not in anybody's interest. It will be a gentle drift with changes over the long term. In fact I expect it to be a much better working arrangement.
It's difficult to imagine the re-introduction of the death penalty "just" for at most a handful of cases each year - adding up child murders, mass murderers, and terrorist murderers.
But that was in fact the position pre-abolition. On average there were about 12 executions per annum, after the removal of most capital crimes other than murder from the statute book in 1835.
Post the Homicide Act 1957, there were about 4 executions per annum.
The problem was that the final say was in the hands of the Home Secretary, who on occasion could not avoid his decision taking on a political aspect, with resulting perceived injustice.
A better system would be that employed in certain American states, where the jury set the punishment. It is doubtful we would have had the cases of Derek Bentley or Ruth Ellis, for example, which gave such weight to the abolition movement, had juries had the final say...
It's never done with murder or theft, for example.
You are on dangerous ground when you start drawing analogies between sex crime and crimes of violence and or theft. Such an equation might imply, for example, that the special rules of evidence and procedure which apply for the purposes of increasing the number convictions in sex cases (but not in others) ought to be abolished.
I don't see particularly why highlighting the desire for some people to find cases of victim's being supposedly responsible for rape versus other crimes suggests that special rules of procedure in rape should be abolished. Though perhaps you can expand.
Remind me what was the banking bail out as a proportion of GDP ?
Pretty middling compared with the banking bailouts in other countries which don't have the benefit of City-style revenues. It was primarily the consumer banks and ex-building societies which needed bailing out, just as in Germany, Spain and Ireland it was ordinary bank lending on property which hit them.
Why is the City and financial services a special case unlike Astra-Zeneca? Not wise too many eggs in one basket.
Actually that is a very good point, but I think in the opposite sense to what you intend. The City has been important to the UK since the 17th Century, but it really took off when Maggie removed obstacles to foreign takeovers of City institutions and removed other special protections.
Yes, and led to the disaster that the country is today.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
The difference is the social context, and the effects that has.
It's a fact that if you take the word "rape" out of the question and do surveys using other terms the amount of respondents admitting to what is rape rises significantly.
What you have is this general disconnect between the abhorrence of rape as a concept and the act itself.
They don't think "I'm going to rape her", they don't think 'rape is fine'. They think rape is bad then convince themselves that 'this isn't really rape'. It's not really rape if she came back to my flat then changed her mind. It's not really rape if we're at a party and she's passed out drunk etc.
And the various pieces of 'advice' that talk to women about staying safe, "don't wear revealing clothing" etc. The contrasting of what is real rape (i.e. the stranger in an alley example, which makes up a small percentage of actual rapes) with acquaintance rape and diminishing the latter helps drive that disconnect and increase rape, and also decrease the likelihood of victims contacting the police.
I specifically acknowledged the ambiguities in Helmer's post, with regards to things like what he means by "much lighter sentence" etc.
The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
Why is the City and financial services a special case unlike Astra-Zeneca? Not wise too many eggs in one basket.
Actually that is a very good point, but I think in the opposite sense to what you intend. The City has been important to the UK since the 17th Century, but it really took off when Maggie removed obstacles to foreign takeovers of City institutions and removed other special protections.
Yes, and led to the disaster that the country is today.
You think Maggie is responsible for Labour over-spending?
Yes, and led to the disaster that the country is today.
No, that was Gordon Brown's contribution, when he ignored Peter Lilley's very specific warnings aboout the crazy tripartite regulation system which left no-one in charge of supervising the solvency of the banking system.
Remind me what was the banking bail out as a proportion of GDP ?
Pretty middling compared with the banking bailouts in other countries which don't have the benefit of City-style revenues. It was primarily the consumer banks and ex-building societies which needed bailing out, just as in Germany, Spain and Ireland it was ordinary bank lending on property which hit them.
Well if you call 100% of GDP piddling. Better not say it too loud though or you'll give David Willetts ideas.
Last time I looked though banks had taxpayers on the hook for more than BL, mining, steel and ship building combined. Which is odd for our most competitive industry.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
Well said
Not really, because it confuses (as this argument always does) burglary with violence against the person. If I am burgled, there is a chance I could get the goods back. If I am a victim of GBH, or rape, or any other crime against the person, then that is that. It is your body, rather than your belongings, that is violated.
If someone wants to walk down the street wearing any clothes that it is legal to wear, then they should be able to do so without any hint of danger. Excusing rapists by blaming the victim is wrong.
Having said that, I have known several people who have been raped; enough to make me realise it is more common than most people think, and very under-reported. All have been raped by people in their family, or by people in a position of authority. I've never met anyone who's admitted to having been the victim of stranger rape.
Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis
SWEET JESUS !
Unbelievably stupid if that is a genuine account. UKIP really need to stop screwing about on this stuff. An email needs to go out to everyone working for them saying very clearly that X, Y and Z will not be tolerated, and will result in immediate sacking from the party. Yes, the media is biased against them, but that is the world they're in and they have to stop handing them easy goals.
Looks genuine, accounts followed by a lot of UKIP people, including Patrick O'Flynn etc.
It's difficult to imagine the re-introduction of the death penalty "just" for at most a handful of cases each year - adding up child murders, mass murderers, and terrorist murderers.
But that was in fact the position pre-abolition. On average there were about 12 executions per annum, after the removal of most capital crimes other than murder from the statute book in 1835.
Post the Homicide Act 1957, there were about 4 executions per annum.
The problem was that the final say was in the hands of the Home Secretary, who on occasion could not avoid his decision taking on a political aspect, with resulting perceived injustice.
A better system would be that employed in certain American states, where the jury set the punishment. It is doubtful we would have had the cases of Derek Bentley or Ruth Ellis, for example, which gave such weight to the abolition movement, had juries had the final say...
That's rather my point, Rod. Whether or not it was the position we left, it is difficult to imagine it being the position we would return to. You'd have to win a public argument that the state was legally and morally entitled to kill people, only to simultaneously accept that in 98% of murder cases it would not be the appropriate punishment.
Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis
SWEET JESUS !
Unbelievably stupid if that is a genuine account. UKIP really need to stop screwing about on this stuff. An email needs to go out to everyone working for them saying very clearly that X, Y and Z will not be tolerated, and will result in immediate sacking from the party. Yes, the media is biased against them, but that is the world they're in and they have to stop handing them easy goals.
Yes, and led to the disaster that the country is today.
No, that was Gordon Brown's contribution, when he ignored Peter Lilley's very specific warnings aboout the crazy tripartite regulation system which left no-one in charge of supervising the solvency of the banking system.
So there was nothing to stop the banks massively over-leveraging - so the banks massively over-leveraged.
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
If we are to treat rape like burglary, then I still don't see how the victim ends up "to blame for" their being robbed. Their failure relates to some prior aspect, and we might say that they are fault for encouraging robbery in their area. But we must treat the robber himself as an autonomous human being, whose act of theft is distinct from those acts which preceded it.
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
Someone who leaves their windows open is an idiot who is putting themselves at risk. A woman who gets horrendously drunk and wears provocative clothing is an idiot who is putting herself at risk.
Neither is morally culpably for the crime that they were victims of. But we should certainly encourage them and others of their ilk to take a more sensible approach to their own security.
Yes, and led to the disaster that the country is today.
No, that was Gordon Brown's contribution, when he ignored Peter Lilley's very specific warnings aboout the crazy tripartite regulation system which left no-one in charge of supervising the solvency of the banking system.
Are you saying that Brown's ineptness forced highly paid executives with many years experience to lend recklessly ?
I'd always thought he gave them the chance to make stupid loans and they took it.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
- snip - The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
If your other half has a set of keys to your car and drives off in it after an argument without your consent, is that theft ?
You do realise that, for the average person on the street, banking bonus caps and the like would be one of the best reasons to STAY in the EU?
Only if they are half-wits who want to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Of course, they may be; many of them vote Labour, after all. Quite how they expect the NHS to be financed without the City is anyone's guess.
How about in the same way the NHS was financed in the 40 years prior to the 1980s, before "the City" took off? How about financing it using the money saved by not bailing out the feckless w/bankers?
Mr. 565, I appreciate you are too young to remember those days, but the City has always turned a huge profit for the UK. Yes, even before Mrs Thatcher got her paws on it and banned insider trading. In days of yore the City profits were known as "invisibles" in the trade figures and were just about the only thing that kept us solvent. That, of course, was also in the days before idiot politicians decided that earning our keep didn't matter and we could just devalue and borrow our way to prosperity.
Mr. Charles can probably give you a better history lesson on the subject of the City than I can, but if you bother to actually look at how the economy of this country has developed (and its wars won), you will find the City at the back of it all at least since the early to mid 17th century. We might not like it, it might offend our sense of the power of noble labour but in reality there would be no NHS, or indeed much else, without finance and in this country that means the City.
Indeed, Mr. Quincel. To use a burglary analogy, if you leave your windows open and the door unlocked, you increase the risk of being burgled. That doesn't mean it's ok or you don't deserve your stuff back and the criminal brought to justice, but it does mean you could do more to keep yourself safe.
If we are to treat rape like burglary, then I still don't see how the victim ends up "to blame for" their being robbed. Their failure relates to some prior aspect, and we might say that they are fault for encouraging robbery in their area. But we must treat the robber himself as an autonomous human being, whose act of theft is distinct from those acts which preceded it.
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
Someone who leaves their windows open is an idiot who is putting themselves at risk. A woman who gets horrendously drunk and wears provocative clothing is an idiot who is putting herself at risk.
Neither is morally culpably for the crime that they were victims of. But we should certainly encourage them and others of their ilk to take a more sensible approach to their own security.
Putting aside the issue of whether rape can be compared to burglary, I'd accept that. Helmer and "victim blaming" necessarily imparts culpability (moral or legal) to the victim for the crime itself, and that's why I disagree. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage people to stay safe, because that is another issue (as I hoped to make clear) - the "prior aspect".
Well if you call 100% of GDP piddling. Better not say it too loud though or you'll give David Willetts ideas.
Last time I looked though banks had taxpayers on the hook for more than BL, mining, steel and ship building combined. Which is odd for our most competitive industry.
You are confusing a guarantee with a cost, but I note you haven't actually answered my point: if it was the City and investment banking which was the issue, how come Ireland and Spain - which don't have anything like the City - were so badly hit, and how come in Germany the boring Landesbanken required such humoungous bailouts?
That's rather my point, Rod. Whether or not it was the position we left, it is difficult to imagine it being the position we would return to. You'd have to win a public argument that the state was legally and morally entitled to kill people, only to simultaneously accept that in 98% of murder cases it would not be the appropriate punishment.
The actual figures were that about 50% of male convicted murderers were reprieved, and 90% of the women...
Got an e-mail that looked dodgy and Twitter seems to confirm. It purports to be from Amazon, asking for credit card details to be verified/checked or suchlike. Just thought I'd mention it.
Well if you call 100% of GDP piddling. Better not say it too loud though or you'll give David Willetts ideas.
Last time I looked though banks had taxpayers on the hook for more than BL, mining, steel and ship building combined. Which is odd for our most competitive industry.
You are confusing a guarantee with a cost, but I note you haven't actually answered my point: if it was the City and investment banking which was the issue, how come Ireland and Spain - which don't have anything like the City - were so badly hit, and how come in Germany the boring Landesbanken required such humoungous bailouts?
You do realise that, for the average person on the street, banking bonus caps and the like would be one of the best reasons to STAY in the EU?
Only if they are half-wits who want to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Of course, they may be; many of them vote Labour, after all. Quite how they expect the NHS to be financed without the City is anyone's guess.
How about in the same way the NHS was financed in the 40 years prior to the 1980s, before "the City" took off? How about financing it using the money saved by not bailing out the feckless w/bankers?
Why is the City and financial services a special case unlike Astra-Zeneca? Not wise too many eggs in one basket.
Actually that is a very good point, but I think in the opposite sense to what you intend. The City has been important to the UK since the 17th Century, but it really took off when Maggie removed obstacles to foreign takeovers of City institutions and removed other special protections.
There is - I understand - an argument that the transaction tax would have value in slowing down the number of 'unnecessary' transactions that just make fractional profits, and therefore in reducing the inherent instability of the stock market, etc. I do know that such mathematical phenomena exist - in ecosystem dynamics for example - but do not know enough about economics to judge this. Do you or anyone have a knowledgeable view on this?
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
The difference is the social context, and the effects that has.
It's a fact that if you take the word "rape" out of the question and do surveys using other terms the amount of respondents admitting to what is rape rises significantly.
What you have is this general disconnect between the abhorrence of rape as a concept and the act itself.
They don't think "I'm going to rape her", they don't think 'rape is fine'. They think rape is bad then convince themselves that 'this isn't really rape'. It's not really rape if she came back to my flat then changed her mind. It's not really rape if we're at a party and she's passed out drunk etc.
And the various pieces of 'advice' that talk to women about staying safe, "don't wear revealing clothing" etc. The contrasting of what is real rape (i.e. the stranger in an alley example, which makes up a small percentage of actual rapes) with acquaintance rape and diminishing the latter helps drive that disconnect and increase rape, and also decrease the likelihood of victims contacting the police.
I specifically acknowledged the ambiguities in Helmer's post, with regards to things like what he means by "much lighter sentence" etc.
The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
Stating the obvious.. it's a very tricky one to weigh up., and I am not sure the analogies work all that well.
I think the "unlocked car" analogy would work better if the car was regularly left unlocked and driven away by strangers and friends, then one day a friend drove it away having taken the keys and unlocked it, assuming you wouldn't mind.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
- snip - The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
If your other half has a set of keys to your car and drives off in it after an argument without your consent, is that theft ?
Yes.
I mean there's a whole public interest side of things where if she returns it soon after etc and not pressing charges (alongside any grey areas about available for her to use).
But if a hypothetical girlfriend of mine drove off with my car and didn't bring it back reasonably soon (and obviously you can't unrape someone so the analogy isn't exact) I'd be calling the police.
For an easier comparison, if your other half attacks you is that not assault/battery/etc?
I think the choice of Helmer is very poor. Not necessarily because of the by-election itself but because it gives the perfect attack for the other parties for the Euro-elections. Why bother voting for a UKIP party list when the first name on that list is planning on jumping ship only two weeks later. The candidate should have been someone who was not standing in the Euros.
It was Brown who put in place a completely hopeless regulatory framework which managed the remarkable combination of being extremely detailed, cumbersome, and expensive, whilst leaving no-one actually in charge of the integrity of the banking system.
If we had had a sane regulatory system, we would still have been hit, obviously, but the damage would have been contained, as it had been for the previous 150 years despite all the world financial crises of that period (which include the Great Depression and two World Wars).
Specifically, a sane regulator would have never allowed Northern Rock to become at risk of insolvency, and would certainly never have allowed the RBS takeover of ABN Amro. Incredibly, the FSA didn't even bother to discuss the latter in any detail.
Well if you call 100% of GDP piddling. Better not say it too loud though or you'll give David Willetts ideas.
Last time I looked though banks had taxpayers on the hook for more than BL, mining, steel and ship building combined. Which is odd for our most competitive industry.
You are confusing a guarantee with a cost, but I note you haven't actually answered my point: if it was the City and investment banking which was the issue, how come Ireland and Spain - which don't have anything like the City - were so badly hit, and how come in Germany the boring Landesbanken required such humoungous bailouts?
Your point was a diversion Richard. A "well if you think we're bad look at the others".
It didn't actually answer the question which was how much has the City cost us ?
let's start with RBS has blown £46bn and we still have 25+% of LBG.
then chuck in £375bn of QE which is a measure to offset a collapsed banking system and for which savers and pension funds are paying
and then let's ask why DO the banks still need guarantees - because they still have more losses to come and need the security.
In simple terms if banks were the tremendous business you claim they would issue equity to willing shareholders to regain their room for manoeuvre. But they can't because nobody believes they are out of the woods yet. PPI, Libor, laundering drug money really is that what you call world class ?
We've had this discussion on off 5 years now. The banking crisis is 6 years old and still they need the full range of support from taxpayers.
Just because they're taking our money by stealth doesn't mean they're not mugging us.
Mr. Crosby, women (especially attractive ones) tend to get lighter sentences and are likely to have a psych intervention (psychologist/psychiatrist is summoned to see whether the defendant has a psych condition, which is a mitigating circumstance).
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
The difference is the social context, and the effects that has.
It's a fact that if you take the word "rape" out of the question and do surveys using other terms the amount of respondents admitting to what is rape rises significantly.
What you have is this general disconnect between the abhorrence of rape as a concept and the act itself.
They don't think "I'm going to rape her", they don't think 'rape is fine'. They think rape is bad then convince themselves that 'this isn't really rape'. It's not really rape if she came back to my flat then changed her mind. It's not really rape if we're at a party and she's passed out drunk etc.
And the various pieces of 'advice' that talk to women about staying safe, "don't wear revealing clothing" etc. The contrasting of what is real rape (i.e. the stranger in an alley example, which makes up a small percentage of actual rapes) with acquaintance rape and diminishing the latter helps drive that disconnect and increase rape, and also decrease the likelihood of victims contacting the police.
I specifically acknowledged the ambiguities in Helmer's post, with regards to things like what he means by "much lighter sentence" etc.
The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
Stating the obvious.. it's a very tricky one to weigh up., and I am not sure the analogies work all that well.
I think the "unlocked car" analogy would work better if the car was regularly left unlocked and driven away by strangers and friends, then one day a friend drove it away having taken the keys and unlocked it, assuming you wouldn't mind.
Is this while I'm standing next to the car saying "No"?
Danny: The NHS could of course be funded without the tax revenues from the City but ordinary working people would be paying the sorts of rates we had in the 1960's and 1970's i.e. starting rates of tax of 33% with higher rates of 80% and taxes on investment income i.e. savings.
Is that what people want? Or is it possible that people, while loving to bash "bankers", are also pleased that all the things we want can be paid for by taxes on their bonuses? Labour have been particularly dishonest in the way that they claim that everything they promise will come from one tax. It's going to be a rude awakening for some when they realise that everyone will have to pay a lot more tax if we allow one of our most successful industries to be destroyed.
As for the EU, the government should simply tell them that the FTT - as currently proposed - is a hostile act, designed to destroy a significant UK industry, as the EU well knows. The US has already said that they will not collect it - in theory they too are affected - and we should say the same.
What actually happened with the banks is they came up with an idea - securitization - which they thought massively reduced the risk of lending so the banks in various countries "lobbied" politicians in various countries to scrap the various institutional protections that had built up to prevent the banks over-leveraging - and then they over-leveraged and it all went bang.
In this country that was Brown and New Labour. In other countries it was other people and other parties. Same reason though - bank lobbying.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
Well said
Not really, because it confuses (as this argument always does) burglary with violence against the person. If I am burgled, there is a chance I could get the goods back. If I am a victim of GBH, or rape, or any other crime against the person, then that is that. It is your body, rather than your belongings, that is violated.
If someone wants to walk down the street wearing any clothes that it is legal to wear, then they should be able to do so without any hint of danger. Excusing rapists by blaming the victim is wrong.
Having said that, I have known several people who have been raped; enough to make me realise it is more common than most people think, and very under-reported. All have been raped by people in their family, or by people in a position of authority. I've never met anyone who's admitted to having been the victim of stranger rape.
A girl I know told me at the weekend that she had definitely been technically raped by exes on more than one occasion, but girls that complained about it should get over it.
Another girl I know was raped by the London cabbie John Worboys and has been in therapy ever since
So it takes all sorts. I never excused anyone, or mentioned clothing etc, and I don't want to get into the absurd position of seeming to be on the side of rapists.
My original point was that Helmer said they are all wrong, and should all be punished, its for judges to decide how serious each case is on merit. Which must be pretty much what happens, no?
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
The difference is the social context, and the effects that has.
It's a fact that if you take the word "rape" out of the question and do surveys using other terms the amount of respondents admitting to what is rape rises significantly.
What you have is this general disconnect between the abhorrence of rape as a concept and the act itself.
They don't think "I'm going to rape her", they don't think 'rape is fine'. They think rape is bad then convince themselves that 'this isn't really rape'. It's not really rape if she came back to my flat then changed her mind. It's not really rape if we're at a party and she's passed out drunk etc.
And the various pieces of 'advice' that talk to women about staying safe, "don't wear revealing clothing" etc. The contrasting of what is real rape (i.e. the stranger in an alley example, which makes up a small percentage of actual rapes) with acquaintance rape and diminishing the latter helps drive that disconnect and increase rape, and also decrease the likelihood of victims contacting the police.
I specifically acknowledged the ambiguities in Helmer's post, with regards to things like what he means by "much lighter sentence" etc.
The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
Stating the obvious.. it's a very tricky one to weigh up., and I am not sure the analogies work all that well.
I think the "unlocked car" analogy would work better if the car was regularly left unlocked and driven away by strangers and friends, then one day a friend drove it away having taken the keys and unlocked it, assuming you wouldn't mind.
Is this while I'm standing next to the car saying "No"?
In this analogous world, the taking of the keys was the overstepping of the mark, and the car being locked was the woman saying no.
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Just mimicking what happens to Scotland regularly in the UK and the reason we will be out come September.
Point of order, Mr. G., SCotland may well vote for independence in September but it won't "be out" as you put it for many months thereafter. Indeed if the SNP leader has his way it wont be until early 2016. A total nonsense in my view and a time table probably based on him needing time to work out how to cope with what he has brought about. Be that as it may Scotland will not "be out" in September this year.
Hurst , In spirit if not in body. Since we will soon after agree to work in a fashion similar to a federal union it will mean a minimum of change and a very gradual change indeed. There will be no big bang as it is not in anybody's interest. It will be a gentle drift with changes over the long term. In fact I expect it to be a much better working arrangement.
Mr. G., we shall see but my view is that you are being somewhat optimistic. Scotland is either independent or it is not the idea or a long slow gradual change in status won't work. It might have worked with increasing devolution gradually over a number of years but that isn't where we are. There isn't going to be an independence day, flags flying, bands playing, searchlights playing on Edinburgh Castle and all the rest of that rubbish. The day after the relationship will have changed completely.
@Alanbrooke - No, my point wasn't a diversion. My point was absolutely central to the argument: countries with or without a large financial services sector were hit, some of them more badly than us. Therefore, it is a major blunder of logic to blame the fact that we have a large financial services sector for the bailout costs.
If you actually look at the crash and the bailouts, the underlying cause of much of the trouble was nothing much to do with investment banking and the other financial services (insurance, foreign exchange trading, capital raising etc) which the City does so well. Instead, a lot of it was property-related: boring mortgages.
Still don't believe me? Look at Lloyds - banks don't come more boring than Lloyds, they had no investment banking arm to speak of. Yet they needed a massive taxpayer bailout. And Barclays - which has a large investment banking arm - didn't.
I think the choice of Helmer is very poor. Not necessarily because of the by-election itself but because it gives the perfect attack for the other parties for the Euro-elections. Why bother voting for a UKIP party list when the first name on that list is planning on jumping ship only two weeks later. The candidate should have been someone who was not standing in the Euros.
I disagree. Only anoraks like PBers will make that connection.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 11m Just to be clear, nobody at UKIP in Newark knows who @UKIPNewark is. I only follow it because I follow every UKIP twitter account I find.
On topic: I think Mair would be an excellent choice as would Andrew Neil. Maitlis is a lightweight and K Wark talks too much rather than asking questions.
But I rather fear that Newsnight is being dumbed down and that we will lose the serious and probing political interview.
@Alanbrooke - No, my point wasn't a diversion. My point was absolutely central to the argument: countries with or without a large financial services sector were hit, some of them more badly than us. Therefore, it is a major blunder of logic to blame the fact that we have a large financial services sector for the bailout costs.
If you actually look at the crash and the bailouts, the underlying cause of much of the trouble was nothing much to do with investment banking and the other financial services (insurance, foreign exchange trading, capital raising etc) which the City does so well. Instead, a lot of it was property-related: boring mortgages.
Still don't believe me? Look at Lloyds - banks don't come more boring than Lloyds, they had no investment banking arm to speak of. Yet they needed a massive bailout. And Barclays - which has a large investment banking arm - didn't.
I've had my car 'technically' stolen if we're going along with this analogy, but I'd expect any decent QC to rip me to shreds/be laughed out of court if I was to pursue the matter.
Is a parent who advises their child not to walk home after dark with an expensive piece of the latest electronic equipment "victim blaming"? Is it "victim blaming" for the flying squad to advise a person transporting a large quantity of specious stones not to advertise the fact, and to employ reasonable security measures? Until people are prepared to be consistent and condemn such positions as 'at very best very clumsy... and at worst terrible' there is no point engaging with their sophistry.
- snip - The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
If your other half has a set of keys to your car and drives off in it after an argument without your consent, is that theft ?
Yes.
I mean there's a whole public interest side of things where if she returns it soon after etc and not pressing charges (alongside any grey areas about available for her to use).
But if a hypothetical girlfriend of mine drove off with my car and didn't bring it back reasonably soon (and obviously you can't unrape someone so the analogy isn't exact) I'd be calling the police.
For an easier comparison, if your other half attacks you is that not assault/battery/etc?
Theft is fairly simple to understand: (1) the appropriation of (2) property (3) belonging to another (4) dishonestly and (5) with an intention to permanently deprive bearing in mind (6) honest belief in consent (or right at law) means that the transaction is not to be considered dishonest.
So without adding too much, yes, your wife can steal your car ((5) may be in issue). Whether the CPS prosecutes is another thing (the public interest and a reasonable prospect of conviction). However normally the question is whether the act is rape (which is much closer to the question of blame), not whether the CPS should not prosecute certain cases of rape.
Comments
.....Pfizer chief Ian Read turns out to be a Scottish-born graduate of Imperial College London who has spent his entire career with the company. AstraZeneca, by contrast, is run by a Frenchman, Pascal Soriot, under a Swedish chairman, Leif Johansson, both parachuted in two years ago – reminders that Astra Zeneca is already a multinational with its research facilities divided between Cheshire and Sweden and less than 15 per cent of its workforce based in the UK.......
Ed Miliband’s verbiage about the need for powers to block bids that threaten ‘British jobs and science’ already looks like what it is: opportunism that reveals ignorance and antipathy towards business.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/pfizers-already-beaten-ed-miliband-now-it-just-needs-to-offer-the-right-price/
Mr Helmer treads a fine line in his article between this position and actually suggesting the moral guilt is shared, I'd be inclined to suggest he tighten up his wording in future discussions on the topic.
Obviously I'd expect Lib Dem -> Labour swing to outweigh it but with the Lib Dems having no chance and the race looking like it could go closish could be some Lib Dem -> Con switchers...
As between the robber of a house whose windows are unlocked, and the one whose windows are bolted tight, there can be no moral difference. If that is so, then there is no room to invoke the victim's failings except in a distinct anterior sense.
I have no moral objection to capital punishment. I just think it's probably more trouble than it's worth to reintroduce it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2014/trust_chairman.html
As its not a 'full time job' but largely ceremonial, I'd have thought he could stay on if he so wished.
Yes, and, as I've said before, such moves by the EU are shifting the balance in favour of leaving the EU if we can't get them changed. This is one strong reason why the possibility of UKIP wrecking the renegotiation and referendum, by installing Ed in No 10, is such a disaster for the country.
@michaelsavage: As the start of by-election campaigns go, that effort from @UKIPNewark could be the quickest own goal in history...
Then complaining if someone actually managed to snatch something.
Helmer's phrasing goes beyond the examples you gave, which is precisely why it is clumsy. Your examples make no mention of blame, but he specifically contrasts the second case with the first where "the blame is squarely on the perpetrator" thus implying that that in the second case the blame is shared.
SWEET JESUS !
In fact, I think that's one of the best arguments on the pro-EU side: arguing that sticking together in a club allows us to take on the global "Davos elite" of big businesses and the super-wealthy who think they can go to tax havens whenever they like and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab in our own countries, whereas if we were all just individual countries we wouldn't have the collective might to bring them into line. But the common argument pro-EUers make, "trade opportunities", is a very feeble argument, not to mention the offensive Cleggite mantra that anyone who wants to leave the EU is a small-minded bigot.
Of course, they may be; many of them vote Labour, after all. Quite how they expect the NHS to be financed without the City is anyone's guess.
Fair enough Richard, but I really think its time that Cameron and Osborne came out and said precisely this, very firmly and very indisputably.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL1zs4OKYAU
I am not sure whether O'Flynn means "No I don't know" or "No its not for real"
Rowena Mason @rowenamason 29m
Is @UkipNewark for real? It has just tweeted this: "Newark - our indigenous, white candidate is ready to rock and roll. #letsdothis"
Claire Phipps @Claire_Phipps 25m
@rowenamason @UKIPNewark surely @oflynndirector will know?
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector
@Claire_Phipps @rowenamason @UKIPNewark That would be a no.
The ideal compromise Ukip line (imo) would be something like
"we don't agree with rent controls for blah blah reasons but we understand why people are getting desperate blah blah however if we get back control of our borders and stop 200,000 extra people every year then that should take a lot of the pressure off housing costs blah blah"
Remind me what was the banking bail out as a proportion of GDP ?
UKIP Newark @UKIPNewark 1h
Here's our man... Roger Helmer will represent us in the upcoming by election. Exciting. #roger4newark #earthquake pic.twitter.com/hyTbmgRoAY
In fact I expect it to be a much better working arrangement.
Post the Homicide Act 1957, there were about 4 executions per annum.
The problem was that the final say was in the hands of the Home Secretary, who on occasion could not avoid his decision taking on a political aspect, with resulting perceived injustice.
A better system would be that employed in certain American states, where the jury set the punishment. It is doubtful we would have had the cases of Derek Bentley or Ruth Ellis, for example, which gave such weight to the abolition movement, had juries had the final say...
It's a fact that if you take the word "rape" out of the question and do surveys using other terms the amount of respondents admitting to what is rape rises significantly.
What you have is this general disconnect between the abhorrence of rape as a concept and the act itself.
They don't think "I'm going to rape her", they don't think 'rape is fine'. They think rape is bad then convince themselves that 'this isn't really rape'. It's not really rape if she came back to my flat then changed her mind. It's not really rape if we're at a party and she's passed out drunk etc.
And the various pieces of 'advice' that talk to women about staying safe, "don't wear revealing clothing" etc. The contrasting of what is real rape (i.e. the stranger in an alley example, which makes up a small percentage of actual rapes) with acquaintance rape and diminishing the latter helps drive that disconnect and increase rape, and also decrease the likelihood of victims contacting the police.
I specifically acknowledged the ambiguities in Helmer's post, with regards to things like what he means by "much lighter sentence" etc.
The difference is this. If you leave your car unlocked and someone nicks it, people might call you a bit stupid but they're not going to say it's not really theft (I don't know off the top of my head if the sentence for stealing an unlocked car differs from stealing a locked car, anyone know?).
With rape they do, and that kind of societal mood music has consequences.
Wow.
No, that was Gordon Brown's contribution, when he ignored Peter Lilley's very specific warnings aboout the crazy tripartite regulation system which left no-one in charge of supervising the solvency of the banking system.
Last time I looked though banks had taxpayers on the hook for more than BL, mining, steel and ship building combined. Which is odd for our most competitive industry.
If someone wants to walk down the street wearing any clothes that it is legal to wear, then they should be able to do so without any hint of danger. Excusing rapists by blaming the victim is wrong.
Having said that, I have known several people who have been raped; enough to make me realise it is more common than most people think, and very under-reported. All have been raped by people in their family, or by people in a position of authority. I've never met anyone who's admitted to having been the victim of stranger rape.
Neither is morally culpably for the crime that they were victims of. But we should certainly encourage them and others of their ilk to take a more sensible approach to their own security.
I'd always thought he gave them the chance to make stupid loans and they took it.
Mr. Charles can probably give you a better history lesson on the subject of the City than I can, but if you bother to actually look at how the economy of this country has developed (and its wars won), you will find the City at the back of it all at least since the early to mid 17th century. We might not like it, it might offend our sense of the power of noble labour but in reality there would be no NHS, or indeed much else, without finance and in this country that means the City.
One guy was even reprieved twice!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Simcox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8
I think the "unlocked car" analogy would work better if the car was regularly left unlocked and driven away by strangers and friends, then one day a friend drove it away having taken the keys and unlocked it, assuming you wouldn't mind.
I mean there's a whole public interest side of things where if she returns it soon after etc and not pressing charges (alongside any grey areas about available for her to use).
But if a hypothetical girlfriend of mine drove off with my car and didn't bring it back reasonably soon (and obviously you can't unrape someone so the analogy isn't exact) I'd be calling the police.
For an easier comparison, if your other half attacks you is that not assault/battery/etc?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uukBpYD9PU&feature=kp
If we had had a sane regulatory system, we would still have been hit, obviously, but the damage would have been contained, as it had been for the previous 150 years despite all the world financial crises of that period (which include the Great Depression and two World Wars).
Specifically, a sane regulator would have never allowed Northern Rock to become at risk of insolvency, and would certainly never have allowed the RBS takeover of ABN Amro. Incredibly, the FSA didn't even bother to discuss the latter in any detail.
It didn't actually answer the question which was how much has the City cost us ?
let's start with RBS has blown £46bn and we still have 25+% of LBG.
then chuck in £375bn of QE which is a measure to offset a collapsed banking system and for which savers and pension funds are paying
and then let's ask why DO the banks still need guarantees - because they still have more losses to come and need the security.
In simple terms if banks were the tremendous business you claim they would issue equity to willing shareholders to regain their room for manoeuvre. But they can't because nobody believes they are out of the woods yet. PPI, Libor, laundering drug money really is that what you call world class ?
We've had this discussion on off 5 years now. The banking crisis is 6 years old and still they need the full range of support from taxpayers.
Just because they're taking our money by stealth doesn't mean they're not mugging us.
Mr. Llama, heard that before, it's quite good.
Is that what people want? Or is it possible that people, while loving to bash "bankers", are also pleased that all the things we want can be paid for by taxes on their bonuses? Labour have been particularly dishonest in the way that they claim that everything they promise will come from one tax. It's going to be a rude awakening for some when they realise that everyone will have to pay a lot more tax if we allow one of our most successful industries to be destroyed.
As for the EU, the government should simply tell them that the FTT - as currently proposed - is a hostile act, designed to destroy a significant UK industry, as the EU well knows. The US has already said that they will not collect it - in theory they too are affected - and we should say the same.
In this country that was Brown and New Labour. In other countries it was other people and other parties. Same reason though - bank lobbying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27293493
Another girl I know was raped by the London cabbie John Worboys and has been in therapy ever since
So it takes all sorts. I never excused anyone, or mentioned clothing etc, and I don't want to get into the absurd position of seeming to be on the side of rapists.
My original point was that Helmer said they are all wrong, and should all be punished, its for judges to decide how serious each case is on merit. Which must be pretty much what happens, no?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/solomonhughes/tory-mp-earns-1000-an-hour-helping-oligarchs-to-buy-london-h
:-)
If you actually look at the crash and the bailouts, the underlying cause of much of the trouble was nothing much to do with investment banking and the other financial services (insurance, foreign exchange trading, capital raising etc) which the City does so well. Instead, a lot of it was property-related: boring mortgages.
Still don't believe me? Look at Lloyds - banks don't come more boring than Lloyds, they had no investment banking arm to speak of. Yet they needed a massive taxpayer bailout. And Barclays - which has a large investment banking arm - didn't.
Just to be clear, nobody at UKIP in Newark knows who @UKIPNewark is. I only follow it because I follow every UKIP twitter account I find.
But I rather fear that Newsnight is being dumbed down and that we will lose the serious and probing political interview.
I've had my car 'technically' stolen if we're going along with this analogy, but I'd expect any decent QC to rip me to shreds/be laughed out of court if I was to pursue the matter.
So without adding too much, yes, your wife can steal your car ((5) may be in issue). Whether the CPS prosecutes is another thing (the public interest and a reasonable prospect of conviction). However normally the question is whether the act is rape (which is much closer to the question of blame), not whether the CPS should not prosecute certain cases of rape.