@PaulOnPolitics: Latest from sources is that @AnnBarnesKPCC is likely to face a motion of no confidence from Kent Crime Panel tomorrow
After her disastrous documentary appearance last week, I'm not surprised.
Anyone know what happens if they do find a no-confidence motion? ie is there a possibility of a PCC by-election in Kent? It would be a very strong UKIP target - Kent as the voting area in a low turnout election where people are talking about crime (if anything)?
This argument could be used to support 90 day detention, as, in fact, it was.
No, you are completely missing the point. It's a trade-off of harm vs benefit. If, unknown to me, some computer in a data centre is processing zillions of email records and amongst those is an email from me, then that is arguably a breach of my civil liberties, but is hardly going to wreck my life. What Blair was proposing was an absolute abomination - he was proposing to wreck the lives of legally completely innocent men by giving them the equivalent of 6-month jail sentence without not only no trial, but no charge, and not even a vague inkling of what they might be suspected of. It is ludicrous, bordering on insane, to regard the former as comparable to the latter, in its degree of harm to innocent people.
You fundamentally misunderstand what remand in custody is about. With a few specious exceptions introduced in the last twenty years, it is about preserving the integrity of the legal process. It is not a punishment. The other point is that no one can be remanded into custody without an order of a court of record.
I understand entirely what remand in custody is. It is about locking up innocent men. We accept it because it is necessary, proportionate, subject to proper oversight, and not abused, even though in its effect on the innocent it is infinitely worse than a computer sniffing through emails.
You favour surveillance powers being subject to no judicial scrutiny whatsoever.
No I don't. I favour the powers being defined in law like any other powers of the executive, and, where abuses are suspected, subject to judicial scrutiny like any other power.
I compliment the way Gill has given fairly straightforward answers to the journalist writing the article but sometimes such bluntness can be self-incriminating:
“If we hadn’t employed people from overseas, we’d have been called racist. The fact that we did employ immigrants is leading to charges of hypocrisy. But Ukip has never said it wants to stop all immigration – it wants to limit the numbers.”
Oh dear. I always said it would end in tears.
Er no. It is an entirely consistent position and only those like yourself who put politics above facts (as you yourself happily stated) would see it any other way
My apologies for the delay in replying, Richard.
It is not about putting politics above facts.
It is about being a shareholder of a family company which has given preference to immigrant labour over the local unemployed. And one which has done so consistently and as a matter of policy.
Not illegal of course, but somewhat hypocritical for a UKIP MEP whose recent campaign for election led on the need to limit EU immigration in order to provide more jobs and state services for the British unemployed.
It would be like Socrates snooping on Richard Nabavi's emails in order to secure advantage in a PB tipping competition.
Mr. Jim, what was so terrible about her appearance?
Did you not watch it? She came across as an amalgam of Nicola Murray and Ian Fletcher. Her flip chart of "the onion" was lamentable. She looked out of her depth.
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
@PaulOnPolitics: Latest from sources is that @AnnBarnesKPCC is likely to face a motion of no confidence from Kent Crime Panel tomorrow
After her disastrous documentary appearance last week, I'm not surprised.
Anyone know what happens if they do find a no-confidence motion? ie is there a possibility of a PCC by-election in Kent? It would be a very strong UKIP target - Kent as the voting area in a low turnout election where people are talking about crime (if anything)?
I honestly don't know, I'm not fully conversant with the relevant Act. However I'm certain that in practical terms if the Crime Panel expresses no confidence the Commissioner ought to resign. Whether there is any mechanism to compel her to go I don't know but if there isn't and it gets messy it might expose a flaw in the legislation etc
As it happens, I knew Theresa at University - "nasty" she is not......
You're not ex-Hugh's are you?
No - met her thru the Union.....and the Edmund Burke Society, where she once led an "expulsion by the college of ex-Presidents" of a particularly tedious speaker.....
You were in the Edmund Burke as well? When were you there, if it's not too impolite to ask.
Around the same time as Theresa May......tho I gather it is no more, what with the poor things actually having to study these days.....I knew or was acquainted with quite a few of the cavalcade of wit & beauty.....hunky Dunky....Damian & Alicia, poor Philip Geddes who was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods.....
An exact contemporary, I found the Piers Gaveston Society far more intellectually stimulating.
Er, I also don't know who those two people are. Are you suggesting she was as ill-prepared as Flaminius prior to the ambush at Lake Trasimene?
They are satirical characters one from The Thick of It and the other from Olympic and BBC parodies 2012 and W1A. It wasn't lack of preparation it was ineptitude on a massive massive scale.
Mr. Corporeal, easier to assess physical abuse. Being a bit mean or even not being especially warm as a parent is far harder to assess.
Mr Dancer, do you think psychological harm by neglect is not possible? Or impossible to assess?
To take an example from the opposite extreme, someone can live in prefect physical health in solitary confinement. But raising a child in such conditions would (I would suggest) cause psychological harm and should be criminal.
As it happens, I knew Theresa at University - "nasty" she is not......
You're not ex-Hugh's are you?
No - met her thru the Union.....and the Edmund Burke Society, where she once led an "expulsion by the college of ex-Presidents" of a particularly tedious speaker.....
You were in the Edmund Burke as well? When were you there, if it's not too impolite to ask.
Around the same time as Theresa May......tho I gather it is no more, what with the poor things actually having to study these days.....I knew or was acquainted with quite a few of the cavalcade of wit & beauty.....hunky Dunky....Damian & Alicia, poor Philip Geddes who was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods.....
An exact contemporary, I found the Piers Gaveston Society far more intellectually stimulating.
It's quite frightening as one's1974-77 years are revisited (who can ever forget or forgive the monstrous persecution of Vivien Dinham?).
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
UKIP should pounce on this nonsense if it becomes law.. it will probably add 3-4% to their VI
As it happens, I knew Theresa at University - "nasty" she is not......
You're not ex-Hugh's are you?
No - met her thru the Union.....and the Edmund Burke Society, where she once led an "expulsion by the college of ex-Presidents" of a particularly tedious speaker.....
You were in the Edmund Burke as well? When were you there, if it's not too impolite to ask.
Around the same time as Theresa May......tho I gather it is no more, what with the poor things actually having to study these days.....I knew or was acquainted with quite a few of the cavalcade of wit & beauty.....hunky Dunky....Damian & Alicia, poor Philip Geddes who was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods.....
An exact contemporary, I found the Piers Gaveston Society far more intellectually stimulating.
I knew the Gaveston only by reputation....which held that the stimulation was not entirely intellectual......
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
UKIP should pounce on this nonsense if it becomes law.. it will probably add 3-4% to their VI
Next stop communism
You think psychological harm by neglect is not possible, or shouldn't be criminal?
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
What sets alarm bells ringing for me is listening to the advocates of this law. Robert Buckland cites a fairy story as justification for it. Being cold and distant to a child, criticising a child, withholding love from a child may or may not be desirable, depending on context, but they should not come within the scope of the criminal law. Parents have very different ideas about how children should be raised.
I am not convinced that there is some great evil at work that needs such a law to be passed. The vast majority of parents do their best for their children.
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
UKIP should pounce on this nonsense if it becomes law.. it will probably add 3-4% to their VI
Next stop communism
You think psychological harm by neglect is not possible, or shouldn't be criminal?
Mr. Corporeal, easier to assess physical abuse. Being a bit mean or even not being especially warm as a parent is far harder to assess.
Mr Dancer, do you think psychological harm by neglect is not possible? Or impossible to assess?
To take an example from the opposite extreme, someone can live in prefect physical health in solitary confinement. But raising a child in such conditions would (I would suggest) cause psychological harm and should be criminal.
I'd like to see the exact definition proposed before deciding whether I support or oppose this measure. In the BBC report on this, we are told "The bill will extend the definition of child cruelty to ensure it covers extreme cases of psychological harm."
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
What sets alarm bells ringing for me is listening to the advocates of this law. Robert Buckland cites a fairy story as justification for it. Being cold and distant to a child, criticising a child, withholding love from a child may or may not be desirable, depending on context, but they should not come within the scope of the criminal law. Parents have very different ideas about how children should be raised.
I am not convinced that there is some great evil at work that needs such a law to be passed. The vast majority of parents do their best for their children.
Mr. Corporeal, easier to assess physical abuse. Being a bit mean or even not being especially warm as a parent is far harder to assess.
Mr Dancer, do you think psychological harm by neglect is not possible? Or impossible to assess?
To take an example from the opposite extreme, someone can live in prefect physical health in solitary confinement. But raising a child in such conditions would (I would suggest) cause psychological harm and should be criminal.
I'd like to see the exact definition proposed before deciding whether I support or oppose this measure. In the BBC report on this, we are told "The bill will extend the definition of child cruelty to ensure it covers extreme cases of psychological harm."
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
UKIP should pounce on this nonsense if it becomes law.. it will probably add 3-4% to their VI
Next stop communism
You think psychological harm by neglect is not possible, or shouldn't be criminal?
It shouldnt be criminal
No level of psychological harm should be criminal? There's no way to psychologically harm a child sufficient to be criminal?
Alistair Darling interview: “Salmond is behaving like Kim Jong-il”....
He wants to turn it into a contest between Scotland and England, which is why he wants a televised debate with David Cameron. That should not happen. I want to debate him. I’m ready to. But he’s refusing to enter into discussions with the television companies – STV, the BBC, Sky and Channel 4. It’s all being cut very fine. It’s not too late. I challenge him to a debate.
Mr. Corporeal, I agree with Mr. Antifrank that we need to see the precise drafting, but I have faith that the politicians will cock it up and more harm than good will come of it. Hopefully I'll be wrong.
Alistair Darling interview: “Salmond is behaving like Kim Jong-il”....
He wants to turn it into a contest between Scotland and England, which is why he wants a televised debate with David Cameron. That should not happen. I want to debate him. I’m ready to. But he’s refusing to enter into discussions with the television companies – STV, the BBC, Sky and Channel 4. It’s all being cut very fine. It’s not too late. I challenge him to a debate.
On "psychological abuse" I'm in favour of looking at if a law can be drafted that can have a reasonable expectation of making a difference in this area. One assumes that having proposed legislation the government believe they can so draft a law. It is now up to legislative scrutiny to see if the mechanism proposed is viable and suitable and if not proposing amendments to tighten up etc. Should parents be able to cause emotional and psychological harm on their children? No. Is it possible realistically to restrain such behaviour? I don't know.
The two big dangers are that either the legal net is cast so wide that nothing gets caught and the law is useless or so narrow that behaviours or omissions get treated as neglect and abuse that most people would not perceive in those terms. I don't fault the government for trying but am concerned that they won't get a law that is either capable of being enforced or beneficial if enforced.
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
UKIP should pounce on this nonsense if it becomes law.. it will probably add 3-4% to their VI
Next stop communism
You think psychological harm by neglect is not possible, or shouldn't be criminal?
It shouldnt be criminal
No level of psychological harm should be criminal? There's no way to psychologically harm a child sufficient to be criminal?
The state cant control everything. Cruel people will be cruel to their kids whether it is against the law or not. This law will lead to a myriad of false accusations, grey areas and recriminations
Imagine being a kid that reports a genuinely cruel parent and the case is dismissed.
In the kind of society we have now, decent parents, partuicularly step & foster, will be getting charged or banged up for not letting girls wear miniskirts or boys smoke.
I think it will do more harm than good, and we should leave it to peoples good nature to bring their kids up as they see fit.
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
What sets alarm bells ringing for me is listening to the advocates of this law. Robert Buckland cites a fairy story as justification for it. Being cold and distant to a child, criticising a child, withholding love from a child may or may not be desirable, depending on context, but they should not come within the scope of the criminal law. Parents have very different ideas about how children should be raised.
I am not convinced that there is some great evil at work that needs such a law to be passed. The vast majority of parents do their best for their children.
Realistically Sean F this law is primarily updating things, the current status is an 80 year old law that's being currently re-interpreted for modern use. The new bill is mainly clarifying things (it's been very watered down compared to the kind of new offences being proposed originally).
I agree with LIAMT that the "psychological cruelty" law is bonkers.
It is absolutely mental.
The bloke on Sky News that was "affected" the other day was a pathetic excuse of a man, about 60, moaning that his Dad had never said he loved him and didnt butyhim enough presents as a kid.
A very scary law
I find myself echoing Ramsay Snow, when listening to such people "Your daddy was mean to you? Your mummy didn't appweciate you?"
Sure, but you can do that to almost any law if you push the definition to the extreme.
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
What sets alarm bells ringing for me is listening to the advocates of this law. Robert Buckland cites a fairy story as justification for it. Being cold and distant to a child, criticising a child, withholding love from a child may or may not be desirable, depending on context, but they should not come within the scope of the criminal law. Parents have very different ideas about how children should be raised.
I am not convinced that there is some great evil at work that needs such a law to be passed. The vast majority of parents do their best for their children.
The vast majority of parents do not murder their children; that is not a good argument for not having a law criminalising those that do.
Mr. Jim, at some point most parents do 'some' emotional or psychological harm to their children. The alternative is that either the children are staggeringly psychologically healthy or that the parents handle every situation perfectly. It's unlikely either will be true for the vast majority.
We'll have to wait and see but I'm reasonably confident the Government will bugger it up. Back when Labour commissioned psychologists to assess the polygraph as an anti-paedophile, post-release tool they were told it was a crock. They ignored the advice and used it anyway (not party political, the Coalition continued this stupidity).
As it happens, I knew Theresa at University - "nasty" she is not......
You're not ex-Hugh's are you?
No - met her thru the Union.....and the Edmund Burke Society, where she once led an "expulsion by the college of ex-Presidents" of a particularly tedious speaker.....
You were in the Edmund Burke as well? When were you there, if it's not too impolite to ask.
Around the same time as Theresa May......tho I gather it is no more, what with the poor things actually having to study these days.....I knew or was acquainted with quite a few of the cavalcade of wit & beauty.....hunky Dunky....Damian & Alicia, poor Philip Geddes who was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods.....
An exact contemporary, I found the Piers Gaveston Society far more intellectually stimulating.
It's quite frightening as one's1974-77 years are revisited (who can ever forget or forgive the monstrous persecution of Vivien Dinham?).
Interesting to note that there was a [later convert to] kipper in the crowd even from back then.
As it happens, I knew Theresa at University - "nasty" she is not......
You're not ex-Hugh's are you?
No - met her thru the Union.....and the Edmund Burke Society, where she once led an "expulsion by the college of ex-Presidents" of a particularly tedious speaker.....
You were in the Edmund Burke as well? When were you there, if it's not too impolite to ask.
Around the same time as Theresa May......tho I gather it is no more, what with the poor things actually having to study these days.....I knew or was acquainted with quite a few of the cavalcade of wit & beauty.....hunky Dunky....Damian & Alicia, poor Philip Geddes who was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods.....
An exact contemporary, I found the Piers Gaveston Society far more intellectually stimulating.
I knew the Gaveston only by reputation....which held that the stimulation was not entirely intellectual......
Mr. Jim, at some point most parents do 'some' emotional or psychological harm to their children. The alternative is that either the children are staggeringly psychologically healthy or that the parents handle every situation perfectly. It's unlikely either will be true for the vast majority.
We'll have to wait and see but I'm reasonably confident the Government will bugger it up. Back when Labour commissioned psychologists to assess the polygraph as an anti-paedophile, post-release tool they were told it was a crock. They ignored the advice and used it anyway (not party political, the Coalition continued this stupidity).
Mr Dancer, as I pointed out with battery if you deliberately stretch the definition to absurdity you could make a lot of laws invalid.
This looks like bringing definitions from the Childrens Act from civil law into criminal law and updating the current criminal meaning to modern interpretations.
29 million people from Romania and Bulgaria will be deterred from coming to Britain for fear of being prosecuted for emotional abuse of their children.
Mr Dancer as I said I am not averse to looking at the law in this area. I recognise the dangers and the complexities involved. If they can get a law that works, is enforceable and doesn't look ridiculous when being enforced then great. If not then let Parliament through legislative scrutiny determine that this is a nonsense and get rid. Its why Labours thing about the lack of laws is so risible, I'd rather 2-3 exceptionally well tested laws are passed per session than loads of underscrutinised garbage.
The biggest problem I perceive for getting a really decent law or at least averting a disastrous one is the children's charities pushing this who will label any opponent of this as "anti-child" or "pro child abuse".
Our Goverment funds, trains and arms Islamist militants in order to topple the Syrian government. Call me zany, but might we be safer from terrorists if we stopped making them?
Mr Dancer as I said I am not averse to looking at the law in this area. I recognise the dangers and the complexities involved. If they can get a law that works, is enforceable and doesn't look ridiculous when being enforced then great. If not then let Parliament through legislative scrutiny determine that this is a nonsense and get rid. Its why Labours thing about the lack of laws is so risible, I'd rather 2-3 exceptionally well tested laws are passed per session than loads of underscrutinised garbage.
The biggest problem I perceive for getting a really decent law or at least averting a disastrous one is the children's charities pushing this who will label any opponent of this as "anti-child" or "pro child abuse".
Stick around, that'll be thrown at someone on here before the night is out
I have wondered why FGM legislation wouldn't catch ludicrous f to m "gender reassignment" operations.
Obviously, the latter involves informed consent by a willing adult.
So can FGM; I've heard Maasai/Samburu apologists for FGM explain that their women long to be circumcised and suffer psychological damage if excluded from the customs of their ancestors.
I have wondered why FGM legislation wouldn't catch ludicrous f to m "gender reassignment" operations.
Obviously, the latter involves informed consent by a willing adult.
So can FGM; I've heard Maasai/Samburu apologists for FGM explain that their women long to be circumcised and suffer psychological damage if excluded from the customs of their ancestors.
Our Goverment funds, trains and arms Islamist militants in order to topple the Syrian government. Call me zany, but might we be safer from terrorists if we stopped making them?
@Ishmael_X Really you are pursuing a rather dangerous argument. FGM is a process that can cause irreparable damage to female genitalia, it can cause major problems in respect of childbirth as well as being traumatic indeed barbaric to those upon whom it is inflicted. Those who claim that it is consensual due to custom or inherited practice are flat out lying, such "consent" is under a form of duress. Nobody would willingly consent to the type of torture that FGM entails.
Gender reassignment of any description is an entirely different concept involving the refashioning of the outward appearance to match the inner gender conviction. To compare it in any way to the practice of FGM is utterly wrong and is insulting to those for whom such reassignment is requisite for them to live a fulfilled life. It also in some sense seeks to trivialise the barbaric practice of FGM which should be abhorrent to civilised peoples everywhere.
I have wondered why FGM legislation wouldn't catch ludicrous f to m "gender reassignment" operations.
Obviously, the latter involves informed consent by a willing adult.
So can FGM; I've heard Maasai/Samburu apologists for FGM explain that their women long to be circumcised and suffer psychological damage if excluded from the customs of their ancestors.
It is not possible to consent to Female Genital Mutilation, even as a competent adult. As a result the law is enforced very variably. If you're a young white women who thinks her labia are a funny shape then you can have a labiaplasty and no-one will be prosecuted, even though by a reading of the law that is FGM just as much as if you're a young African women who wants some form of female circumcision. Similarly gender reassignment surgery (F to M but not the other way) is against the same law. Consent is no excuse! Another reason not to trust governments/MPs etc to draft workable laws.
From the law "A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris"
Our Goverment funds, trains and arms Islamist militants in order to topple the Syrian government. Call me zany, but might we be safer from terrorists if we stopped making them?
Evidence please.
@Socrates Since the funding, training and arming (I do not distinguish between equipment that kills and equipment that facilitates killing) is a matter of public record, I take it you mean the designation as terrorists? Car bombings, kidnappings, prisoner executions, cannibalism, beheadings... If it walks talks and behaves like a terrorist, it is one as far as I am concerned.
You might find this blog interesting: http://friendsofsyria.co Not balanced in any sense of the word, but interesting.
Comments
It is not about putting politics above facts.
It is about being a shareholder of a family company which has given preference to immigrant labour over the local unemployed. And one which has done so consistently and as a matter of policy.
Not illegal of course, but somewhat hypocritical for a UKIP MEP whose recent campaign for election led on the need to limit EU immigration in order to provide more jobs and state services for the British unemployed.
It would be like Socrates snooping on Richard Nabavi's emails in order to secure advantage in a PB tipping competition.
Er, I also don't know who those two people are. Are you suggesting she was as ill-prepared as Flaminius prior to the ambush at Lake Trasimene?
We generally don't prosecute people for battery on grounds of a poke in the arm even if the definition could theoretically allow this.
http://order-order.com/2014/06/04/watch-penny-mordaunts-loyal-address-in-full/
To take an example from the opposite extreme, someone can live in prefect physical health in solitary confinement. But raising a child in such conditions would (I would suggest) cause psychological harm and should be criminal.
Next stop communism
I am not convinced that there is some great evil at work that needs such a law to be passed. The vast majority of parents do their best for their children.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27693587
So long as this is appropriately drawn up to cover this, this seems entirely reasonable to me.
But if this is to cover the Philip Larkin view of parenthood, I'd be much more wary.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
Alistair Darling interview: “Salmond is behaving like Kim Jong-il”....
He wants to turn it into a contest between Scotland and England, which is why he wants a televised debate with David Cameron. That should not happen. I want to debate him. I’m ready to. But he’s refusing to enter into discussions with the television companies – STV, the BBC, Sky and Channel 4. It’s all being cut very fine. It’s not too late. I challenge him to a debate.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/alistair-darling-interview-salmond-behaving-kim-jong-il
If you put the swings on UNS the reaction would be this.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/19-times-british-politicians-tried-to-look-normal-and-failed
The two big dangers are that either the legal net is cast so wide that nothing gets caught and the law is useless or so narrow that behaviours or omissions get treated as neglect and abuse that most people would not perceive in those terms. I don't fault the government for trying but am concerned that they won't get a law that is either capable of being enforced or beneficial if enforced.
Imagine being a kid that reports a genuinely cruel parent and the case is dismissed.
In the kind of society we have now, decent parents, partuicularly step & foster, will be getting charged or banged up for not letting girls wear miniskirts or boys smoke.
I think it will do more harm than good, and we should leave it to peoples good nature to bring their kids up as they see fit.
If in doubt, family over state every time
We'll have to wait and see but I'm reasonably confident the Government will bugger it up. Back when Labour commissioned psychologists to assess the polygraph as an anti-paedophile, post-release tool they were told it was a crock. They ignored the advice and used it anyway (not party political, the Coalition continued this stupidity).
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-polygraph-work-of-science-fiction.html
I should start getting into this betting milarky.
FGM law expanded to cover foreign nationals habitually resident in UK
Legislation strengthened after small number of cases could not be prosecuted because they did not involve permanent residents
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/04/female-genital-mutilation-law-foreign-nationals-fgm
I have wondered why FGM legislation wouldn't catch ludicrous f to m "gender reassignment" operations.
This looks like bringing definitions from the Childrens Act from civil law into criminal law and updating the current criminal meaning to modern interpretations.
Who needs family when the state knows best?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
The biggest problem I perceive for getting a really decent law or at least averting a disastrous one is the children's charities pushing this who will label any opponent of this as "anti-child" or "pro child abuse".
Really you are pursuing a rather dangerous argument. FGM is a process that can cause irreparable damage to female genitalia, it can cause major problems in respect of childbirth as well as being traumatic indeed barbaric to those upon whom it is inflicted. Those who claim that it is consensual due to custom or inherited practice are flat out lying, such "consent" is under a form of duress. Nobody would willingly consent to the type of torture that FGM entails.
Gender reassignment of any description is an entirely different concept involving the refashioning of the outward appearance to match the inner gender conviction. To compare it in any way to the practice of FGM is utterly wrong and is insulting to those for whom such reassignment is requisite for them to live a fulfilled life. It also in some sense seeks to trivialise the barbaric practice of FGM which should be abhorrent to civilised peoples everywhere.
From the law "A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris"
"Girl" includes women in this law.
You might find this blog interesting: http://friendsofsyria.co Not balanced in any sense of the word, but interesting.