"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
Mr. Charles, presumably the Crown has been involved, making sure they got a fair trial, legal representation and so forth. They have been convicted peddling their filthy muck to ruin the lives of lots of young Spaniards. Why on earth does that imply the UK taxpayer should fork out to give them nicer cells nearer home at our expense?
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
If you look at the stats, there is a pretty high recidivism rate for ex-prisoners.
For me, both sides of the argument are wrong ;-)
1. what people on the "prison should be tough" miss is that the punishment is the *loss of liberty* not the conditions inside. Once you have locked them up, it should be seen as an opportunity to train them and, in particular, educate them as these are the best ways to reduce future reoffending rates (by giving them a meaningful role in society)
2. what people on the "prison doesn't work" side miss is that so many of these individuals mix in very difficult circles - peer pressure is one of the biggest drivers of crime. Community sentencing is all very well, but seen as a soft touch and is often not properly enforced.
In practice, what you need to do is find a way to break people out of the social groups/peer circles that encourage crime, educate them and make sure they they have a way to participate in society in a meaningful way. Sometimes this means prison, sometimes it doesn't (e.g. early intervention can work very well). What it definitely means is a huge focus on those *leaving prison* to prevent them reverting to their old peer groups and becoming recidivists
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
Mr. Charles, presumably the Crown has been involved, making sure they got a fair trial, legal representation and so forth. They have been convicted peddling their filthy muck to ruin the lives of lots of young Spaniards. Why on earth does that imply the UK taxpayer should fork out to give them nicer cells nearer home at our expense?
Because the punishment is the loss of liberty, not the conditions in which they are kept.
And because I want to be able to kick out any Peruvian prisoners on a prison transfer scheme
Trouble is the Kurds are losing, and ISIS are gaining new followers. They're like some Mongol army, enslaving recruiting and beheading their way to victory.
We need to arm the Kurds with some serious shit. They are the best bet for crushing ISIS.
The problem is more complex Sean. It is my understanding that the Americans are backing ISIS (IS now, they have re-branded already) to stop a Shia hegemony that was being establshed by Iran over Iraq and potentially in Syria too. It is noticeable the lack of anyone doing anything to help in Iraq, except Iran.
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
Ooooh! Let's play "guess her religion based on her surname"!!!!!
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
Ooooh! Let's play "guess her religion based on her surname"!!!!!
As the nearest RoI consulate to Peru is in Mexico I'm sure she felt very British all of a sudden..
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 06/08/2014 18:09 David Cameron welcomes Boris Johnson's announcement to stand for Parliament at the General Election. #throughgrittedteeth
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
Ooooh! Let's play "guess her religion based on her surname"!!!!!
As the nearest RoI consulate to Peru is in Mexico I'm sure she felt very British all of a sudden..
I'm sure she's perfectly aware of her rights under the GFA to feel as Irish or as British as she wants at any given moment in time.
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
Not sure who your lawyers's previous clients were should have much bearing on anything.
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
If you look at the stats, there is a pretty high recidivism rate for ex-prisoners.
For me, both sides of the argument are wrong ;-)
1. what people on the "prison should be tough" miss is that the punishment is the *loss of liberty* not the conditions inside. Once you have locked them up, it should be seen as an opportunity to train them and, in particular, educate them as these are the best ways to reduce future reoffending rates (by giving them a meaningful role in society)
2. what people on the "prison doesn't work" side miss is that so many of these individuals mix in very difficult circles - peer pressure is one of the biggest drivers of crime. Community sentencing is all very well, but seen as a soft touch and is often not properly enforced.
In practice, what you need to do is find a way to break people out of the social groups/peer circles that encourage crime, educate them and make sure they they have a way to participate in society in a meaningful way. Sometimes this means prison, sometimes it doesn't (e.g. early intervention can work very well). What it definitely means is a huge focus on those *leaving prison* to prevent them reverting to their old peer groups and becoming recidivists
People who are prepared to commit crimes they know result in prison once are the kind of people that commit such crimes again... It's as simple as that
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
I absolutely cannot stand Boris. I find him completely fake and therefore completely untrustworthy. I think there are plenty of others like me especially outside of London and the Home Counties.
I absolutely cannot stand Boris. I find him completely fake and therefore completely untrustworthy. I think there are plenty of others like me especially outside of London and the Home Counties.
As a Tory, I have to say he wouldn't be my first pick or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th , etc, pick either for that matter. He simply doesn't come close to being Prime Ministerial material imho.
"Drug smugglers Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid are told they could soon be on their way home after the Peruvian authorities agree to let them serve the rest of their sentences in the UK"
Why in Gods name do we want the expense of keeping this pair. They were prepared to spread human misery for their own gain so suddenly the British taxpayer has to fork out? Their offence had no connection with the UK (they were trying to smuggle drugs from Peru to Spain), so why should we be paying out. Their gaol in Peru is horrible and their family can't visit very often, who is responsible for them being in such a mess?
They are British citizens and entitled to the protection of the Crown.
Sometimes that is inconvenient and expensive, but as soon as you allow cost to dilute that principle you are on very dangerous ground.
But Owen Jones and the heart bleeders think prisons here are so awful, surely locking these girls up here will only encourage them to do worse crimes next time... Maybe just let em off?
Ms McCollum used the solicitor who defended the delightful chaps who were arrested in Columbia for helping FARC - now on the run - they perhaps did not want to be seen as citizens of the crown.
Not sure who your lawyers's previous clients were should have much bearing on anything.
The return of Boris will emphasise an existing trend. Who amongst the shadow cabinet could it be said with confidence would be a better minister than the person they are shadowing? Boris adds to Tory strength in depth and highlights how little Ed has to work with, especially in the absence of Alan Johnston and Alastair Darling
I would have thought one drawback of Boris is that he has just spent several years as mayor of London, arguing for the primacy of London and for an even greater skewing of investment priorities towards London. I wouldn’t have thought this would endear him to many outside the south-east? His ‘Heineken’ qualities are often cited (Boris reaches the parts that other Tories can’t reach i.e. the north of England) but I would have thought that due to the understandable enthusiasm with which he has embraced his current role, he is now significantly less attractive to northern voters. When John Prescott was feeling particularly belligerent in front of northern audiences he used to refer, pejoratively, to ‘the London Tories’ (and don’t doubt the extent to which ‘London’ is a pejorative term to the country north of Nottingham) – this is a label which is now more firmly attached to Boris than to any other prominent Conservative.
Boris as Mayor of London is just doing his job - promoting his city. If he became PM I'm sure he'd be promoting his country!
The return of Boris will emphasise an existing trend. Who amongst the shadow cabinet could it be said with confidence would be a better minister than the person they are shadowing? Boris adds to Tory strength in depth and highlights how little Ed has to work with, especially in the absence of Alan Johnston and Alastair Darling
I can see Darling returning to the fold after he's secured victory in the referendum.
Find it quite comical that OGH thinks Boris could be the man to win over UKIP supporters.
Boris has already said that Britain could have a great future outside the EU. Inside a reformed EU would be better, but still, if we're out, so be it. What isn;t acceptable is staying in an unreformed EU.
Boris has been clearer on Europe in four sentences than Dave has in four years.
As Mike's always telling us the UKIP vote isn't all about the EU.
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 06/08/2014 18:09 David Cameron welcomes Boris Johnson's announcement to stand for Parliament at the General Election. #throughgrittedteeth
I don't know why but I just get this funny feeling that His Lordship is very bitter about how things turned out in 2010?
I absolutely cannot stand Boris. I find him completely fake and therefore completely untrustworthy. I think there are plenty of others like me especially outside of London and the Home Counties.
I like him, but feel like he fits being a mayor far better than he ever would as a PM, able and in fact tacitly encouraged to not toe the party line and have some undisciplined personal charm that would not work among the other professional wonks at the elite of the party.
On topic, the biggest indication from that poll is the effect of naming leaders. The headline voting intention: Con 32, Lab 39, LD 8. (Lab lead 7) Named leaders: Cameron, Miliband, Clegg: Con 32, Lab 37, LD 8 (Lab lead 5). With no indication given as to any intent by any party of changing leaders, you'd expect this to equal the headline voting intention. Named leaders: Boris, Miliband, Clegg: Con 33, Lab 37, LD 9 (Lab lead 4). The one point closing of the gap masks some churn: An extra 19% (above the Cameron named question) (of 12% of those who'd give a voting preference) went UKIP-> Con, as did an extra 7% of LDs (7% of 8%). But an extra 9% of Con voters (9% of 32%) moved away, with an extra 4% of Labour voters (4% of 37%) coming in.
So +2.3% (ex UKIP), +0.6% (ex LD), +1.5% (ex Lab), -2.9% (now ex Con): net +1.5%, but this is masked by bonuses to the others as well from the effect (eg LDs get a boost with an extra 5% of Cons going their way to more than offset the 7% of LDs that head away from them due to the Boris effect (5% of 32% is greater than 7% of 8%).
In short - the UKIP bonus is outweighed by the Con penalty on its own. The direct Lab-Con switchers would probably be more useful in any case. I'd expect the Boris effect to be slightly greater than the raw numbers would suggest due to the direct switchers.
What I find most baffling about the yougov grid in this post is that 8% of lib dem voters say would switch to "other" if it was Boris instead of Cameron as Tory leader.
The percentage of remaining core LDs are probably a bit baffling in many ways in fairness, so when you dial down even further into that percentage, who knows what views will be found.
The return of Boris will emphasise an existing trend. Who amongst the shadow cabinet could it be said with confidence would be a better minister than the person they are shadowing? Boris adds to Tory strength in depth and highlights how little Ed has to work with, especially in the absence of Alan Johnston and Alastair Darling
I can see Darling returning to the fold after he's secured victory in the referendum.
People who are prepared to commit crimes they know result in prison once are the kind of people that commit such crimes again... It's as simple as that
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
Again, evidence please. It's not a good example for various reasons, but an interesting comparable is that the only country where capital punishment has been reintroduced in modern times is Denmark - which (IIRC - it's been 20 years since I looked at the data) it actually increased the incidence of serious crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
Again, I agree. But given that by the time they are in prison they are lacking in the educational skills to succeed in mainstream life, is it right to just abandon them or should we try and address the underlying problem?
Boris's record in London is mixed at best. On issues such as a third East London river crossing, he has failed miserably. He's a huge self-publicist and has taken far more power to the office of Mayor than Ken Livingstone ever did.
Boris is all about flourish and self-aggrandissement rather than substantive policies. A few new buses and some bicycles are about all there is in truth but he works well with the grain of the modern London character. The problem is that for many other parts of the UK London is almost a foreign country.
People who are prepared to commit crimes they know result in prison once are the kind of people that commit such crimes again... It's as simple as that
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
Again, evidence please. It's not a good example for various reasons, but an interesting comparable is that the only country where capital punishment has been reintroduced in modern times is Denmark - which (IIRC - it's been 20 years since I looked at the data) it actually increased the incidence of serious crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
Again, I agree. But given that by the time they are in prison they are lacking in the educational skills to succeed in mainstream life, is it right to just abandon them or should we try and address the underlying problem?
You should know that compelling stats/evidence to back up any argument on PB is never enough, even if I could be bothered to look for any in this case.
There are plenty of people who have had rough backgrounds who still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Making criminals out to be victims is part of the slippery slope we got on far too long ago, and insults the intelligence of people from similar backgrounds who chose to tough it out by not breaking the law. It is not us abandoning them, but they who abandon us by turning to crime. If there was no second chance, fewer people would risk chancing the first one
Why do you think so few criminals grass on their mates? Because the punishment for that is tough, worse than prison
What role could Boris take in the GE? Anything too high profile will completely over-shadow Cameron. In fact, if he as so much as leaves his house it will be headline election news.
People who are prepared to commit crimes they know result in prison once are the kind of people that commit such crimes again... It's as simple as that
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
Again, evidence please. It's not a good example for various reasons, but an interesting comparable is that the only country where capital punishment has been reintroduced in modern times is Denmark - which (IIRC - it's been 20 years since I looked at the data) it actually increased the incidence of serious crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
Again, I agree. But given that by the time they are in prison they are lacking in the educational skills to succeed in mainstream life, is it right to just abandon them or should we try and address the underlying problem?
You should know that compelling stats/evidence to back up any argument on PB is never enough, even if I could be bothered to look for any in this case.
There are plenty of people who have had rough backgrounds who still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Making criminals out to be victims is part of the slippery slope we got on far too long ago, and insults the intelligence of people from similar backgrounds who chose to tough it out by not breaking the law. It is not us abandoning them, but they who abandon us by turning to crime. If there was no second chance, fewer people would risk chancing the first one
Why do you think so few criminals grass on their mates? Because the punishment for that is tough, worse than prison
You're missing my point.
You lock them up - deprive them of liberty - as a punishment
And then you use the opportunity to reduce re-offending rates (a positive investment for society at large). Banging them up in a cell 23 hours a day is a wasted chance to fix a problem
Indeed "Conservative London Mayor campaigns for Conservative victory" is hardly news at all. I recall much frenzied debate in 1997 as to whether Margaret Thatcher would campaign for the Conservatives.
Given the problems the Tories have in some key London marginals Boris might be well used on his own patch - I'm sure one of our group will welcome him in Croydon Central for example.
Well Boris won't win me back that's for sure. Interesting calculation on the part of Boris - I'm thinking he's on the Tory most votes, Labour most seats, Miliband uneasy minority government. Dave limp on to 2016 to keep the seat warm for his friend.........As for the seat - is it Uxbridge or Hertsmere? They seem to be the main candidates. NW Hampshire is already taken, which is a pity, as I regularly drive through there up the A34 from Ms Nokes' patch.
Boris Johnson's move shows he doesn't really believe the Tories can win in 2015.
Well, he's no fool, moments of calculated buffonery aside, that much is clear.
Well said, that's exactly what I'm thinking. He'll have spoken to enough of the Tory MP's at the sharp end in the ultra marginals. And he'll have seen what's happening in London as well. There's no way Boris would be coming back as an MP if he viewed another 5 years of coalition / majority Conservative government. Some vote of confidence in his fellow Etonian!
Again, evidence please. It's not a good example for various reasons, but an interesting comparable is that the only country where capital punishment has been reintroduced in modern times is Denmark - which (IIRC - it's been 20 years since I looked at the data) it actually increased the incidence of serious crime
When was that? I thought all Scandinavian countries were abolitionist in practice since the turn of the 20th century or earlier, with the exception of retrospective justice applied to wartime collaborators.
People who are prepared to commit crimes they know result in prison once are the kind of people that commit such crimes again... It's as simple as that
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
Again, evidence please. It's not a good example for various reasons, but an interesting comparable is that the only country where capital punishment has been reintroduced in modern times is Denmark - which (IIRC - it's been 20 years since I looked at the data) it actually increased the incidence of serious crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
Again, I agree. But given that by the time they are in prison they are lacking in the educational skills to succeed in mainstream life, is it right to just abandon them or should we try and address the underlying problem?
You should know that compelling stats/evidence to back up any argument on PB is never enough, even if I could be bothered to look for any in this case.
There are plenty of people who have had rough backgrounds who still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Making criminals out to be victims is part of the slippery slope we got on far too long ago, and insults the intelligence of people from similar backgrounds who chose to tough it out by not breaking the law. It is not us abandoning them, but they who abandon us by turning to crime. If there was no second chance, fewer people would risk chancing the first one
Why do you think so few criminals grass on their mates? Because the punishment for that is tough, worse than prison
You're missing my point.
You lock them up - deprive them of liberty - as a punishment
And then you use the opportunity to reduce re-offending rates (a positive investment for society at large). Banging them up in a cell 23 hours a day is a wasted chance to fix a problem
Hi
But I didn't say they should be locked up 23 hours a day, that we should bring back capital punishment, or anything like that though did I? My initial point was they should go to jail and serve their time rather than get non custodial sentences. Don't know why you are attributing those sentiments to me
I would have thought one drawback of Boris is that he has just spent several years as mayor of London, arguing for the primacy of London and for an even greater skewing of investment priorities towards London. I wouldn’t have thought this would endear him to many outside the south-east? His ‘Heineken’ qualities are often cited (Boris reaches the parts that other Tories can’t reach i.e. the north of England) but I would have thought that due to the understandable enthusiasm with which he has embraced his current role, he is now significantly less attractive to northern voters. When John Prescott was feeling particularly belligerent in front of northern audiences he used to refer, pejoratively, to ‘the London Tories’ (and don’t doubt the extent to which ‘London’ is a pejorative term to the country north of Nottingham) – this is a label which is now more firmly attached to Boris than to any other prominent Conservative.
Boris as Mayor of London is just doing his job - promoting his city. If he became PM I'm sure he'd be promoting his country!
Yes indeed. But my point is that 'former mayor of London' is possibly a net negative on the CV in the eyes of most voters.
Comments
For me, both sides of the argument are wrong ;-)
1. what people on the "prison should be tough" miss is that the punishment is the *loss of liberty* not the conditions inside. Once you have locked them up, it should be seen as an opportunity to train them and, in particular, educate them as these are the best ways to reduce future reoffending rates (by giving them a meaningful role in society)
2. what people on the "prison doesn't work" side miss is that so many of these individuals mix in very difficult circles - peer pressure is one of the biggest drivers of crime. Community sentencing is all very well, but seen as a soft touch and is often not properly enforced.
In practice, what you need to do is find a way to break people out of the social groups/peer circles that encourage crime, educate them and make sure they they have a way to participate in society in a meaningful way. Sometimes this means prison, sometimes it doesn't (e.g. early intervention can work very well). What it definitely means is a huge focus on those *leaving prison* to prevent them reverting to their old peer groups and becoming recidivists
And because I want to be able to kick out any Peruvian prisoners on a prison transfer scheme
Trouble is the Kurds are losing, and ISIS are gaining new followers. They're like some Mongol army, enslaving recruiting and beheading their way to victory.
We need to arm the Kurds with some serious shit. They are the best bet for crushing ISIS.
The problem is more complex Sean. It is my understanding that the Americans are backing ISIS (IS now, they have re-branded already) to stop a Shia hegemony that was being establshed by Iran over Iraq and potentially in Syria too. It is noticeable the lack of anyone doing anything to help in Iraq, except Iran.
Ooooh! Let's play "guess her religion based on her surname"!!!!!
06/08/2014 18:09
David Cameron welcomes Boris Johnson's announcement to stand for Parliament at the General Election. #throughgrittedteeth
If it was so bad they wouldn't do it again. If they heard how bad it was and the law was enforced first time, others wouldn't commit their first crime
These poor creatures should be trained/educated at school, rather than wait for them to commit crime... Maybe schools should be a lot, lot tougher and stricter??
The blue t-shirt, the slicked-back hair, the inane pointing at shellfish: It can only mean David Cameron's holiday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716638/David-Samantha-Cameron-pose-cameras-Portugese-fish-market-eerie-echo-year-s-holiday-photo.html
Named leaders: Cameron, Miliband, Clegg: Con 32, Lab 37, LD 8 (Lab lead 5). With no indication given as to any intent by any party of changing leaders, you'd expect this to equal the headline voting intention.
Named leaders: Boris, Miliband, Clegg: Con 33, Lab 37, LD 9 (Lab lead 4).
The one point closing of the gap masks some churn: An extra 19% (above the Cameron named question) (of 12% of those who'd give a voting preference) went UKIP-> Con, as did an extra 7% of LDs (7% of 8%). But an extra 9% of Con voters (9% of 32%) moved away, with an extra 4% of Labour voters (4% of 37%) coming in.
So +2.3% (ex UKIP), +0.6% (ex LD), +1.5% (ex Lab), -2.9% (now ex Con): net +1.5%, but this is masked by bonuses to the others as well from the effect (eg LDs get a boost with an extra 5% of Cons going their way to more than offset the 7% of LDs that head away from them due to the Boris effect (5% of 32% is greater than 7% of 8%).
In short - the UKIP bonus is outweighed by the Con penalty on its own. The direct Lab-Con switchers would probably be more useful in any case. I'd expect the Boris effect to be slightly greater than the raw numbers would suggest due to the direct switchers.
(And much of this could be MoE as well)
Again, I agree. But given that by the time they are in prison they are lacking in the educational skills to succeed in mainstream life, is it right to just abandon them or should we try and address the underlying problem?
Boris's record in London is mixed at best. On issues such as a third East London river crossing, he has failed miserably. He's a huge self-publicist and has taken far more power to the office of Mayor than Ken Livingstone ever did.
Boris is all about flourish and self-aggrandissement rather than substantive policies. A few new buses and some bicycles are about all there is in truth but he works well with the grain of the modern London character. The problem is that for many other parts of the UK London is almost a foreign country.
--------------------------------------------------------
You should know that compelling stats/evidence to back up any argument on PB is never enough, even if I could be bothered to look for any in this case.
There are plenty of people who have had rough backgrounds who still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Making criminals out to be victims is part of the slippery slope we got on far too long ago, and insults the intelligence of people from similar backgrounds who chose to tough it out by not breaking the law. It is not us abandoning them, but they who abandon us by turning to crime. If there was no second chance, fewer people would risk chancing the first one
Why do you think so few criminals grass on their mates? Because the punishment for that is tough, worse than prison
--------------------------------------------------------
You should know that compelling stats/evidence to back up any argument on PB is never enough, even if I could be bothered to look for any in this case.
There are plenty of people who have had rough backgrounds who still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Making criminals out to be victims is part of the slippery slope we got on far too long ago, and insults the intelligence of people from similar backgrounds who chose to tough it out by not breaking the law. It is not us abandoning them, but they who abandon us by turning to crime. If there was no second chance, fewer people would risk chancing the first one
Why do you think so few criminals grass on their mates? Because the punishment for that is tough, worse than prison
You're missing my point.
You lock them up - deprive them of liberty - as a punishment
And then you use the opportunity to reduce re-offending rates (a positive investment for society at large). Banging them up in a cell 23 hours a day is a wasted chance to fix a problem
Given the problems the Tories have in some key London marginals Boris might be well used on his own patch - I'm sure one of our group will welcome him in Croydon Central for example.
Apparently an ebola victim has died in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28678699
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=32222
Interesting website here documenting a lot of really cold weather around the globe at the current time, give me a break AGW!
http://iceagenow.info/
You lock them up - deprive them of liberty - as a punishment
And then you use the opportunity to reduce re-offending rates (a positive investment for society at large). Banging them up in a cell 23 hours a day is a wasted chance to fix a problem
Hi
But I didn't say they should be locked up 23 hours a day, that we should bring back capital punishment, or anything like that though did I? My initial point was they should go to jail and serve their time rather than get non custodial sentences. Don't know why you are attributing those sentiments to me