OK lets put this private contractors nonsense to bed. The govt gives a firm money to run a prison, what they don't spend is profit. Muddy the water with gruel, freeview or PPV, the contractor has ONE source of income.
Yes and if the government pays them to provide Freeview then that is what the government has paid for. If the contractor then pays for Sky instead then that comes out of the contractors profits it is not chargeable to the government.
Just as if I run a restaurant and someone orders just a steak and I garnish it with chips then I get paid for the steak that was ordered and the costs all comes out of my profit. If however someone orders chips and I garnish it with a steak then that comes out of my profit too but I don't suddenly charge them for the steak which wasn't ordered.
I am more proud of Cameron for his prison speech than I have ever been. Prison is outdated and hasn't worked for decades.
We send too many people to prison and by doing so often make lives worse. Reoffending rates need to be cut. If you're not sympathetic to this, I suggest you spend a week at your local mags court and listen to the situations of a few recidivists.
One of the kindest acts I've ever witnessed was just before Christmas 2014, when a shivering chap who had just been released from Winchester was waiting for a train at Basingstoke. He had a ticket home, but no jumper or overcoat. One chap gave him his jumper, another his scarf. I felt awful for not thinking to help him myself. The chap welled up with the kindness of strangers.
Oh well, at least you felt awful, I'm sure wringing your hands kept them warm.
I've spent loads of time with ex addicts and criminals, some tragic cases, they are not always the same thing. Of course they need help, but before rehabilitation works an acceptance of guilt is required. The debate over rehabilitation goes far deeper than educating prisoners, its about what happens BEFORE they get to prison. A large majority of crime is drug related, penal reform must work alongside drug reform, most politicians would cross the road to avoid a smackhead.
Leave users alone, execute the peddlars of death ie drug dealers, they are filth. Until the drug problems are addressed everything else is irrelevant.
"Peddlars of death"? I thought you were a Libertarian?
It is an individual's right to ingest whatever he or she chooses. The state has one main objective: to protect its citizens. Dealers know that users (almost exclusively vulnerable people) will go to great lengths to get drugs, it is the scourge of society.
I'm not sure why you're questioning my libertarianism, I simply want to punish lawbreakers.
"Oh well, at least you felt awful, I'm sure wringing your hands kept them warm." No good deed or thought should be left unpunished.
Are you one of those people taking photos of that bloke being stabbed at the tube station?
I think it is important to majorly focus on rehab for those connected with drug crimes, shop lifting etc. But when I read about cases like Keighley I do think some need to be kept away from the public until they are elderly. As much as I support second chances, wellbeing of innocent children needs to be placed above that of violent criminals.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
Clueless Thornberry on Radio 4 waffling about the threat to submarines from underwater drones *that haven't been developed*, and might not be for a decade or longer. If at all.
Lord West has already called the programme to say that she's talking complete nonsense.
Who to believe? An Admiral or a professional pie eater?
Underwater drones? Seriously?
I remember Spy Story by Len Deighton about 30 years ago commenting that there were listening posts underwater between Greenland, Iceland and Norway to detect the movement of nuclear submarines and I can believe things might have moved on since but oceans are big and detectability is short range.
As I understand it the next generation of Trident can hit anywhere from anywhere. That is an even bigger place to look.
I guess it depends on how small and cheap such drones could be. You could imagine something that works a bit like the immune system, whereby a very small and cheap marker drone (of which you have millions) attaches to the hull of a submarine and then calls in a killer-drone which follows the submarine and destroys it if you tell it to.
Or dolphins that hunt them down, and send messages to the surface using flying fish. Or squid that send semaphore signals to trained seagulls.
Hunting submarines is phenomenally difficult. They hide in deep water, thermoclines, in areas where detection is difficult due to underwater rock formations in thousands of cubic miles of ocean. All the while highly trained crew with huge power resources are looking for things, looking for them.
Drones should they ever work, are a long, long way into the future. Thornberry and Co think they can talk up their argument using big techno words, but the reality is somewhat different and she ends up looking like a buffoon.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
I am more proud of Cameron for his prison speech than I have ever been. Prison is outdated and hasn't worked for decades.
We send too many people to prison and by doing so often make lives worse. Reoffending rates need to be cut. If you're not sympathetic to this, I suggest you spend a week at your local mags court and listen to the situations of a few recidivists.
One of the kindest acts I've ever witnessed was just before Christmas 2014, when a shivering chap who had just been released from Winchester was waiting for a train at Basingstoke. He had a ticket home, but no jumper or overcoat. One chap gave him his jumper, another his scarf. I felt awful for not thinking to help him myself. The chap welled up with the kindness of strangers.
Oh well, at least you felt awful, I'm sure wringing your hands kept them warm.
I've spent loads of time with ex addicts and criminals, some tragic cases, they are not always the same thing. Of course they need help, but before rehabilitation works an acceptance of guilt is required. The debate over rehabilitation goes far deeper than educating prisoners, its about what happens BEFORE they get to prison. A large majority of crime is drug related, penal reform must work alongside drug reform, most politicians would cross the road to avoid a smackhead.
Leave users alone, execute the peddlars of death ie drug dealers, they are filth. Until the drug problems are addressed everything else is irrelevant.
"Peddlars of death"? I thought you were a Libertarian?
It is an individual's right to ingest whatever he or she chooses. The state has one main objective: to protect its citizens. Dealers know that users (almost exclusively vulnerable people) will go to great lengths to get drugs, it is the scourge of society.
I'm not sure why you're questioning my libertarianism, I simply want to punish lawbreakers.
Taking or possessing illegal drugs is also illegal. If you want to simply punish lawbreakers then logically you have to punish user and supplier.
You are right, however, that hitting suppliers is one major part to the solution. Ending prohibition would go further than anything.
I'd like to think you're right but its very complicated. If users can get it on prescription taxpayers will fund it and that will cause resentment and lose votes, hence why it's never discussed in depth. Having spent years two doors from a rehab clinic (and I don't mean a Priory type 5 star affair) the extent of the problem and the impact on families is enormous. Seeing young girls hounded by dealers is heartbreaking.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
In Colorado it isn't the government - it is private stores regulated by the government - just like off licences are here.
Good discussion on the thread on prisons - in passing, I'd add that it's this sort of thing that makes Parliament interesting. PMQs and the like can be fun, or depressing, but are pretty much like going to a football match - not really a sensible way of spending a career. Actually getting to grips with issues is something that Parliament offers a lot of scope for (not all MPs bother, but most do), and IMO the main respectable reason for wanting to get in there.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
I am more proud of Cameron for his prison speech than I have ever been. Prison is outdated and hasn't worked for decades.
We send too many people to prison and by doing so often make lives worse. Reoffending rates need to be cut. If you're not sympathetic to this, I suggest you spend a week at your local mags court and listen to the situations of a few recidivists.
One of the kindest acts I've ever witnessed was just before Christmas 2014, when a shivering chap who had just been released from Winchester was waiting for a train at Basingstoke. He had a ticket home, but no jumper or overcoat. One chap gave him his jumper, another his scarf. I felt awful for not thinking to help him myself. The chap welled up with the kindness of strangers.
Oh well, at least you felt awful, I'm sure wringing your hands kept them warm.
I've spent loads of time with ex addicts and criminals, some tragic cases, they are not always the same thing. Of course they need help, but before rehabilitation works an acceptance of guilt is required. The debate over rehabilitation goes far deeper than educating prisoners, its about what happens BEFORE they get to prison. A large majority of crime is drug related, penal reform must work alongside drug reform, most politicians would cross the road to avoid a smackhead.
Leave users alone, execute the peddlars of death ie drug dealers, they are filth. Until the drug problems are addressed everything else is irrelevant.
"Peddlars of death"? I thought you were a Libertarian?
It is an individual's right to ingest whatever he or she chooses. The state has one main objective: to protect its citizens. Dealers know that users (almost exclusively vulnerable people) will go to great lengths to get drugs, it is the scourge of society.
I'm not sure why you're questioning my libertarianism, I simply want to punish lawbreakers.
Legalisation of drugs is a touchstone issue for most Libertarians. What business is it of the state what you put into your body or who you buy it from?
OK lets put this private contractors nonsense to bed. The govt gives a firm money to run a prison, what they don't spend is profit. Muddy the water with gruel, freeview or PPV, the contractor has ONE source of income.
Yes and if the government pays them to provide Freeview then that is what the government has paid for. If the contractor then pays for Sky instead then that comes out of the contractors profits it is not chargeable to the government.
Just as if I run a restaurant and someone orders just a steak and I garnish it with chips then I get paid for the steak that was ordered and the costs all comes out of my profit. If however someone orders chips and I garnish it with a steak then that comes out of my profit too but I don't suddenly charge them for the steak which wasn't ordered.
The govt doesn't have any money, they collect it from the taxpayer, we are in debt.
The hole you are digging is getting bigger Mr Thompson, we've been down this road before. You are clearly not stupid, but in your desire to defend and support everything this govt does your position becomes untenable. I'm not argung for or against freeview, I'm simply stating the obvious in terms of who's paying for it.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
The death penalty is never coming back, but I think there is a strong case for certain crimes to have a tariff of life - to mean death in prison, possibly with x years solitary confinement (at the judges discretion). Certain crimes should be held out as so heinous by society that they over-ride the possibility of rehabilitation. I would certainly put crimes against children in that category. You ruin or end a child's life, then you have forfeited all rights to be looked on with compassion.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Not a red herring, as per Wikipedia " The new (Portugese) law (2001) maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.”
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Do you ?
Have you read my posts?
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Acquiring it is no problem at all. The world is awash with heroin, cocaine and dope. The only reason it is expensive is because of the way in which it has to be illegally transported from source to user. If the Government decriminalised it they would have no trouble getting large amounts for very little cost, undercutting the dealers and driving them out of business.
I think it is important to majorly focus on rehab for those connected with drug crimes, shop lifting etc. But when I read about cases like Keighley I do think some need to be kept away from the public until they are elderly. As much as I support second chances, wellbeing of innocent children needs to be placed above that of violent criminals.
I agree with all of this. A relatively small proportion of prisoners are so corrupted that the only sensible thing to be done with them is to keep them out of the way of most of society for very lengthy periods.
A much greater number need education or help with mental health problems.
21) What did the then SNP First Minister Alex Salmond prophesy in March of 2013? a) The end of the world. b) The second coming of Christ. c) A second oil boom, beginning that year, which would generate tax revenues three times higher than official estimates.
The death penalty is never coming back, but I think there is a strong case for certain crimes to have a tariff of life - to mean death in prison, possibly with x years solitary confinement (at the judges discretion). Certain crimes should be held out as so heinous by society that they over-ride the possibility of rehabilitation. I would certainly put crimes against children in that category. You ruin or end a child's life, then you have forfeited all rights to be looked on with compassion.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
I don't think that murderers who torture and/or rape should ever be let back into society.
An example would be Ian Beggs, the "Limbs in the Loch" murderer. In theory, he's eligible for parole in a couple of years, but I think it would be an enormous risk, given his record of violence and sexual assault, ever to let him out again.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Not a red herring, as per Wikipedia " The new (Portugese) law (2001) maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.”
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
Look, its about culture, afaik Colorado is about cannabis, this discussion is about the wider drugs problem. Aspen isn't Moss Side.
The death penalty is never coming back, but I think there is a strong case for certain crimes to have a tariff of life - to mean death in prison, possibly with x years solitary confinement (at the judges discretion). Certain crimes should be held out as so heinous by society that they over-ride the possibility of rehabilitation. I would certainly put crimes against children in that category. You ruin or end a child's life, then you have forfeited all rights to be looked on with compassion.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
That is already the case (and the ECHR has backed down over telling us to end whole life tariffs).
The death penalty is never coming back, but I think there is a strong case for certain crimes to have a tariff of life - to mean death in prison, possibly with x years solitary confinement (at the judges discretion). Certain crimes should be held out as so heinous by society that they over-ride the possibility of rehabilitation. I would certainly put crimes against children in that category. You ruin or end a child's life, then you have forfeited all rights to be looked on with compassion.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
I don't think that murderers who torture and/or rape should ever be let back into society.
An example would be Ian Beggs, the "Limbs in the Loch" murderer. In theory, he's eligible for parole in a couple of years, but I think it would be an enormous risk, given his record of violence and sexual assault, ever to let him out again.
I don't know the case but why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?
Prisons are full of Criminal Masterminds..all with ideas about the perfect crime..that's why they are in there..that is their fantasy of course..in reality most of them are pathetic failures..but that does not mean they cannot benefit from some form of rehabilitation...
Clueless Thornberry on Radio 4 waffling about the threat to submarines from underwater drones *that haven't been developed*, and might not be for a decade or longer. If at all.
Lord West has already called the programme to say that she's talking complete nonsense.
Who to believe? An Admiral or a professional pie eater?
Underwater drones? Seriously?
I remember Spy Story by Len Deighton about 30 years ago commenting that there were listening posts underwater between Greenland, Iceland and Norway to detect the movement of nuclear submarines and I can believe things might have moved on since but oceans are big and detectability is short range.
As I understand it the next generation of Trident can hit anywhere from anywhere. That is an even bigger place to look.
I guess it depends on how small and cheap such drones could be. You could imagine something that works a bit like the immune system, whereby a very small and cheap marker drone (of which you have millions) attaches to the hull of a submarine and then calls in a killer-drone which follows the submarine and destroys it if you tell it to.
AIUI the problem there is that communication under water is very difficult because water (esp. salt water) absorbs 'useful' frequencies - which is exactly how microwaves work.
Sound travels well in water, but has other problems.
Therefore most comms by submarines has to be via via low frequency signals (which work to about 60 feet depth), which are slow. To communicate deeper, you need to go to extremely low frequency (ELF).
Communication between drones at ELF would be exceptionally difficult because you would need an antennae many kilometres long.
Think how much energy you'd need to move a drone through powerful underwater currents over long distances in seawater. How large would the power source need to be?
Ah but you are all forgetting the technology from the alien spacecraft held at Roswell.
On topic: Assuming a Trump win in NH, which seems as certain as these things ever can be, I think that what matters most is not so much who comes second, but how many of the contenders are closely-bunched at around second-equal. If the polls are to be believed, it looks as though there will be no clear second place, with Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Bush all left in the race. Carson and Fiorina are certainly toast (why are they still around?), and Christie looks likely to be so too, although he might surprise on the upside.
If I'm right in these predictions, then relative to the position just after Iowa the clear loser is Rubio and the clear (relative) winner is Bush. A good performance by Kasich - perhaps even coming a clear second - is certainly possible, but in the medium term it's Bush who could be the one who gains from this failure to narrow the race decisively down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Do you ?
Have you read my posts?
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Yes, I have read your posts - but I couldn't fathom your exact position given you call yourself a libertarian but seemed to be anti-drugs.
Personally I'd see the Colorado solution in for pot and treat opiate/coke addiction as a medical issue primarily.
I'd also look at how the hell so much ketamine has got into society at large. That's a bloody HORSE tranquilliser.
The death penalty is never coming back, but I think there is a strong case for certain crimes to have a tariff of life - to mean death in prison, possibly with x years solitary confinement (at the judges discretion). Certain crimes should be held out as so heinous by society that they over-ride the possibility of rehabilitation. I would certainly put crimes against children in that category. You ruin or end a child's life, then you have forfeited all rights to be looked on with compassion.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
I don't think that murderers who torture and/or rape should ever be let back into society.
An example would be Ian Beggs, the "Limbs in the Loch" murderer. In theory, he's eligible for parole in a couple of years, but I think it would be an enormous risk, given his record of violence and sexual assault, ever to let him out again.
I don't know the case but why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?
It was a Scottish case, so the principles may be different to cases in England and Wales.
the deterrent threat is the release of millions of automonous drones, containing the bio details of the target, that will relentlessly seek out and destroy the perpetrator of a nuclear attack.
When we reach the point we can do that then nuclear weapons will be viewed as quaint, highly targeted devices.
Given the pace of technological change and focus of military R&D, this point may be reached before we even deploy the Trident replacement, let alone during its fifty year life.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Acquiring it is no problem at all. The world is awash with heroin, cocaine and dope. The only reason it is expensive is because of the way in which it has to be illegally transported from source to user. If the Government decriminalised it they would have no trouble getting large amounts for very little cost, undercutting the dealers and driving them out of business.
Also, we could apply the kind of consumer protection laws that we have for food and other consumables, ensuring that products are pure and what they claim to be.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Not a red herring, as per Wikipedia " The new (Portugese) law (2001) maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.”
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
Look, its about culture, afaik Colorado is about cannabis, this discussion is about the wider drugs problem. Aspen isn't Moss Side.
If this is the way you treat people when they basically agree with you..........
I don’t think you can talk about the "wider drugs problem” without looking at what is being done world-wide, or at least in other “Western” countries abou it.
Good discussion on the thread on prisons - in passing, I'd add that it's this sort of thing that makes Parliament interesting. PMQs and the like can be fun, or depressing, but are pretty much like going to a football match - not really a sensible way of spending a career. Actually getting to grips with issues is something that Parliament offers a lot of scope for (not all MPs bother, but most do), and IMO the main respectable reason for wanting to get in there.
I can understand that - it has always been a real draw for me. Just up to the early 80s in AC's diaries - after finding his feet he really gets to grips with the detail of defence policy.
I'd like to think there are fewer outrage bus season ticket holders in the HoC - but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if that particular bus company was popular in Westminster too!
OK lets put this private contractors nonsense to bed. The govt gives a firm money to run a prison, what they don't spend is profit. Muddy the water with gruel, freeview or PPV, the contractor has ONE source of income.
Yes and if the government pays them to provide Freeview then that is what the government has paid for. If the contractor then pays for Sky instead then that comes out of the contractors profits it is not chargeable to the government.
Just as if I run a restaurant and someone orders just a steak and I garnish it with chips then I get paid for the steak that was ordered and the costs all comes out of my profit. If however someone orders chips and I garnish it with a steak then that comes out of my profit too but I don't suddenly charge them for the steak which wasn't ordered.
The govt doesn't have any money, they collect it from the taxpayer, we are in debt.
The hole you are digging is getting bigger Mr Thompson, we've been down this road before. You are clearly not stupid, but in your desire to defend and support everything this govt does your position becomes untenable. I'm not argung for or against freeview, I'm simply stating the obvious in terms of who's paying for it.
The government does have money, the fact that they collect it from the taxpayer (or borrow it and collect from future taxpayers) doesn't change that.
There is no hole and I don't defend or support everything the govt does just things I support or when people like you post silly nonsense. In terms of who is paying for Freeview, we are. In terms of who is paying for Sky - unless we have been charged extra then we are not.
Shadsy now has Kasich at 5/4 to finish second (to Trump) in NH, with Rubio priced at 13/8. Laddies then go 5/1 bar these two. The 5/1 shot is somewhat surprisingly Jeb Bush!
On topic: Assuming a Trump win in NH, which seems as certain as these things ever can be, I think that what matters most is not so much who comes second, but how many of the contenders are closely-bunched at around second-equal. If the polls are to be believed, it looks as though there will be no clear second place, with Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Bush all left in the race. Carson and Fiorina are certainly toast (why are they still around?), and Christie looks likely to be so too, although he might surprise on the upside.
If I'm right in these predictions, then relative to the position just after Iowa the clear loser is Rubio and the clear (relative) winner is Bush. A good performance by Kasich - perhaps even coming a clear second - is certainly possible, but in the medium term it's Bush who could be the one who gains from this failure to narrow the race decisively down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
Bush seemed to spring to life in the last debate. I actually found myself warming to him. Too late though?
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Do you ?
Have you read my posts?
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Yes, I have read your posts - but I couldn't fathom your exact position given you call yourself a libertarian but seemed to be anti-drugs.
Personally I'd see the Colorado solution in for pot and treat opiate/coke addiction as a medical issue primarily.
I'd also look at how the hell so much ketamine has got into society at large. That's a bloody HORSE tranquilliser.
Ketamine is (or when I was involved with these things) used in anesthesia. IIRC we began to treat it as a controlled drug .... signing for quantities into the theatre, when used, balance the whole thing etc.
Even more so, if Hodges tweet yesterday stands up to any scrutiny.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 16h16 hours ago Channel 4 News can't be serious. None of the major parties has ever stuck to by-election spending limits.
Then they should change the law.
In the meantime it should be applied without fear or favour.
I like Crick (knew him at Uni - plays a straight bat) - I hope he's also taken (or will take) a look at Oldham - which seemed well resourced by Labour too....
Richard, that's fine in theory. People are making huge money out of human misery, they won't roll over. And then we've got politicians negotiating with poppy farmers in Afghan.
I'm just saying that the drugs world is filthy beyond most people's comprehension, we're not talking about a safety belt law here.
On topic: Assuming a Trump win in NH, which seems as certain as these things ever can be, I think that what matters most is not so much who comes second, but how many of the contenders are closely-bunched at around second-equal. If the polls are to be believed, it looks as though there will be no clear second place, with Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Bush all left in the race. Carson and Fiorina are certainly toast (why are they still around?), and Christie looks likely to be so too, although he might surprise on the upside.
If I'm right in these predictions, then relative to the position just after Iowa the clear loser is Rubio and the clear (relative) winner is Bush. A good performance by Kasich - perhaps even coming a clear second - is certainly possible, but in the medium term it's Bush who could be the one who gains from this failure to narrow the race decisively down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
Bush seemed to spring to life in the last debate. I actually found myself warming to him. Too late though?
NH voters make their minds up late, so the old wisdom goes. Maybe Bush 'aint done yet.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Not a red herring, as per Wikipedia " The new (Portugese) law (2001) maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.”
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
Look, its about culture, afaik Colorado is about cannabis, this discussion is about the wider drugs problem. Aspen isn't Moss Side.
If this is the way you treat people when they basically agree with you..........
I don’t think you can talk about the "wider drugs problem” without looking at what is being done world-wide, or at least in other “Western” countries abou it.
Oh yes I agree we need to look elsewhere, but comparing cannabis in Aspen to the drug culture in inner cities is pointless. A massive majority of the prison population is drug related, they're not hippies puffing on hubba bubbas. If we're looking at different cultures why not copy China?
My whole point is that prison reform is pointless without drug reform. I don't have the answer, I'd simply like to see an acceptance and dialogue.
Even more so, if Hodges tweet yesterday stands up to any scrutiny.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 16h16 hours ago Channel 4 News can't be serious. None of the major parties has ever stuck to by-election spending limits.
Then they should change the law.
In the meantime it should be applied without fear or favour.
I like Crick (knew him at Uni - plays a straight bat) - I hope he's also taken (or will take) a look at Oldham - which seemed well resourced by Labour too....
Problem would surely be third party campaigning as well, Unions and the such etc...
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Not a red herring, as per Wikipedia " The new (Portugese) law (2001) maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.”
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
Look, its about culture, afaik Colorado is about cannabis, this discussion is about the wider drugs problem. Aspen isn't Moss Side.
If this is the way you treat people when they basically agree with you..........
I don’t think you can talk about the "wider drugs problem” without looking at what is being done world-wide, or at least in other “Western” countries abou it.
Oh yes I agree we need to look elsewhere, but comparing cannabis in Aspen to the drug culture in inner cities is pointless. A massive majority of the prison population is drug related, they're not hippies puffing on hubba bubbas.
M
Well, if we took cannabis out of the mix ........
Incidentally, there seems to be a shortage of “prescription” heroin. Odd, isn’t it!
Union campaigning with coaches of members and phone banks etc. It's all very hard to define what's constituency spending when the equivalent of PACs are operating off book.
Even more so, if Hodges tweet yesterday stands up to any scrutiny.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 16h16 hours ago Channel 4 News can't be serious. None of the major parties has ever stuck to by-election spending limits.
Then they should change the law.
In the meantime it should be applied without fear or favour.
I like Crick (knew him at Uni - plays a straight bat) - I hope he's also taken (or will take) a look at Oldham - which seemed well resourced by Labour too....
Problem would surely be third party campaigning as well, Unions and the such etc...
I wonder if it is to protect active sources in Syria?
Feels like mischief making by the media or there is a good old story to tell (think C4 and Prince Harry) and they are all wanting to run that rather than concern about safety of something bigger.
I highly doubt the state and the courts took the decision to clamp down on this original trial so heavily and in such an unprecedented way just for the sake of it.
Also the initial run down of the story is misleading, as he was found guilty, just not of all of the charges. They are making out like a poor innocent man was tried under terrible conditions, found TOTALLY innocent and now the media can't tell you why. He wasn't, he was found innocent on preparing for immediate act of terrorism.
OK lets put this private contractors nonsense to bed. The govt gives a firm money to run a prison, what they don't spend is profit. Muddy the water with gruel, freeview or PPV, the contractor has ONE source of income.
Yes and if the government pays them to provide Freeview then that is what the government has paid for. If the contractor then pays for Sky instead then that comes out of the contractors profits it is not chargeable to the government.
Just as if I run a restaurant and someone orders just a steak and I garnish it with chips then I get paid for the steak that was ordered and the costs all comes out of my profit. If however someone orders chips and I garnish it with a steak then that comes out of my profit too but I don't suddenly charge them for the steak which wasn't ordered.
The govt doesn't have any money, they collect it from the taxpayer, we are in debt.
The hole you are digging is getting bigger Mr Thompson, we've been down this road before. You are clearly not stupid, but in your desire to defend and support everything this govt does your position becomes untenable. I'm not argung for or against freeview, I'm simply stating the obvious in terms of who's paying for it.
The government does have money, the fact that they collect it from the taxpayer (or borrow it and collect from future taxpayers) doesn't change that.
There is no hole and I don't defend or support everything the govt does just things I support or when people like you post silly nonsense. In terms of who is paying for Freeview, we are. In terms of who is paying for Sky - unless we have been charged extra then we are not.
Quite often black can appear white in certain light.
Bush seemed to spring to life in the last debate. I actually found myself warming to him. Too late though?
I don't think it's necessarily too late. Up to now Trump has sucked all the oxygen out of the media coverage. If that changes then perceptions could change quite quickly.
I wouldn't be surprised to see plenty of volatility in the betting markets in the next couple of weeks - this doesn't look a done deal for anyone.
@Morris_Dancer I'm feeling most distrustful of all things German right now. I'd enormous respect for their overall integrity, now since bent emissions and bent media - I simply don't believe them anymore.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Do you ?
Have you read my posts?
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Yes, I have read your posts - but I couldn't fathom your exact position given you call yourself a libertarian but seemed to be anti-drugs.
Personally I'd see the Colorado solution in for pot and treat opiate/coke addiction as a medical issue primarily.
I'd also look at how the hell so much ketamine has got into society at large. That's a bloody HORSE tranquilliser.
I'm not anti drugs, I'm anti drug dealers. That sound odd but I know scummy dealers.
Treating coke addiction as a medical issue would bankrupt the UK, its primarily a middle class drug that users happily pay for, completely the opposite of heroin. Coke users don't, as a rule, shoplift from Waitrose.
Mr. Eagles, quite. Good to see PB's empire expand.
Miss Plato, not unlike the Swedes, the Germans appear reluctant to let reality intrude on their politically correct utopia (although with the Crewe reports and the Rotherham disgrace, this is, sadly, a problem here as well).
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
#Prayforkasich
Chris Christie won't be at subsequent debates I think which will help him.
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
I think it's a binary switch coming out of NH. If he comes out a reasonably clear second he'll look like the one with the momentum and the narrative will turn in his favour. If he stumbles even a little, he'll be portrayed as a loser. The media like to build up or cut down, not to say 'he did OK'.
Mr. 30, and who's going to develop them? For what purpose? How would you tell, at long range, a submarine was there?
Maybe it's a long-term plan. Labour uses underwater (and fictional) drones to excuse having no subs*, and then actual drones to excuse a policy of disbanding the army.
*Except Labour do want subs. Just without nukes. So even if Thornberry were making a valid point about submarines and drones (she isn't), Labour's policy would still be to have the apparently vulnerable submarines.
If Corbyn weren't, well, Corbyn, Labour might perhaps point out which party is actually cutting our armed forces.
We are maintaining our 2% GDP commitment and we have just announced a big spend on intelligence and our special forces (£2bn in new equipment). Plus committing to the early purchase of F35s and increasing the number of Typhoon squadrons. Including territorials the army will be bigger than before
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
#Prayforkasich
If Rubio comes a decent second tonight (not saying he will, I have no idea how NH is going to vote, but on the betting it's probably about 20% that he comes a clear second with Trump not running away with it) then he'll be 1.4.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
How are things doing in Portugal on the drugs front?
No idea, only been there twice to play golf.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
Do you ?
Have you read my posts?
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Yes, I have read your posts - but I couldn't fathom your exact position given you call yourself a libertarian but seemed to be anti-drugs.
Personally I'd see the Colorado solution in for pot and treat opiate/coke addiction as a medical issue primarily.
I'd also look at how the hell so much ketamine has got into society at large. That's a bloody HORSE tranquilliser.
I'm not anti drugs, I'm anti drug dealers. That sound odd but I know scummy dealers.
Treating coke addiction as a medical issue would bankrupt the UK, its primarily a middle class drug that users happily pay for, completely the opposite of heroin. Coke users don't, as a rule, shoplift from Waitrose.
If drugs were legal then supply would be in the hands of law-abiding shopkeepers, as with alcohol and tobacco. Prices would be lower and quality would be higher.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I like how the BBC article conveniently forgets to mention he was First Sea Lord, instead calling him a former Home Office minister (albeit an Admiral).
Mr. Eagles, quite. Good to see PB's empire expand.
Miss Plato, not unlike the Swedes, the Germans appear reluctant to let reality intrude on their politically correct utopia (although with the Crewe reports and the Rotherham disgrace, this is, sadly, a problem here as well).
See BBC reporting of certain recent cases....they even "censored" the local Tory MP's remarks on a particular case, such that his actual views were not fully reflected.
But then this is an organisation who can't call terrorists terrorists, or DAESH DAESH or Jerusalem the captial of Israel.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Acquiring it is no problem at all. The world is awash with heroin, cocaine and dope. The only reason it is expensive is because of the way in which it has to be illegally transported from source to user. If the Government decriminalised it they would have no trouble getting large amounts for very little cost, undercutting the dealers and driving them out of business.
Also, we could apply the kind of consumer protection laws that we have for food and other consumables, ensuring that products are pure and what they claim to be.
What health warnings would you put on the packets?
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
#Prayforkasich
If Rubio comes a decent second tonight (not saying he will, I have no idea how NH is going to vote, but on the betting it's probably about 20% that he comes a clear second with Trump not running away with it) then he'll be 1.4.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Acquiring it is no problem at all. The world is awash with heroin, cocaine and dope. The only reason it is expensive is because of the way in which it has to be illegally transported from source to user. If the Government decriminalised it they would have no trouble getting large amounts for very little cost, undercutting the dealers and driving them out of business.
Also, we could apply the kind of consumer protection laws that we have for food and other consumables, ensuring that products are pure and what they claim to be.
What health warnings would you put on the packets?
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I like how the BBC article conveniently forgets to mention he was First Sea Lord, instead calling him a former Home Office minister (albeit an Admiral).
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I like how the BBC article conveniently forgets to mention he was First Sea Lord, instead calling him a former Home Office minister (albeit an Admiral).
Yes, definitely a good media performer (as evident by his intervention today).
I don' think Rubio is as dead as the current media narrative makes him, just as he wasn't as winning as they previously had him. Instead he's somewhere in the middle methinks. He can come back from one bad debate - hopefully there'll be an opportunity to zero out on him after New Hampshire though.
#Prayforkasich
If Rubio comes a decent second tonight (not saying he will, I have no idea how NH is going to vote, but on the betting it's probably about 20% that he comes a clear second with Trump not running away with it) then he'll be 1.4.
Whats a "reasonably clear" 2nd ?
29-17 ?
It's about being clear of 3rd more than distance from Trump imo. But Trump under 30% too.
I can understand that - it has always been a real draw for me. Just up to the early 80s in AC's diaries - after finding his feet he really gets to grips with the detail of defence policy.
I'd like to think there are fewer outrage bus season ticket holders in the HoC - but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if that particular bus company was popular in Westminster too!
There are almost no outrage bus season ticket holders in the Commons - just people who sometimes pretend to be because they think it gets votes. If you talk privately to anyone in the Commons you'll get a civil conversation, and usually an interesting one. I can only think of two exceptions in 13 years (people who were gratuitously rude in a discussion). Ultimately MPs are at least partly there for the same reason - because they're interested in what's happening and hope to improve it - and it's a waste of time to be outraged in private. Select Committees work particularly well for that reason.
I try to promote the same sort of thing here, apart from occasional provocations, and hope it's a good advertisement for dialogue-based politics.
We are maintaining our 2% GDP commitment and we have just announced a big spend on intelligence and our special forces (£2bn in new equipment). Plus committing to the early purchase of F35s and increasing the number of Typhoon squadrons. Including territorials the army will be bigger than before
There's a lot of moaning about defence spending, but we are getting the full order of F35s, both carriers will go into service, more Typhoons (and they are upgraded too) in service, P-9 Poseidon ordered, 20 next-generation Predator UCAVs, Zephyr ordered (this looks very interesting), Sentinel in service until 2025, and more.
I still think we should spend more on defence but it really does seem like we are getting much better at procurement and planning for the future, and we will have some very capable armed forces by the 2020s.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I like how the BBC article conveniently forgets to mention he was First Sea Lord, instead calling him a former Home Office minister (albeit an Admiral).
West is a very lucky Admiral, having been court-martialed for losing documents on a canal tow path.
The Americans have already built underwater drones. Whether they'd sell them to a Corbyn-led Royal Navy is open to doubt, however, even assuming the Tories haven't sold all the boats off by then.
The RN is also conducting its own trials with underwater drones. However, there is a big, big step from the sort of tasks current drones are being asked to do (mainly mine hunting in shallow water and oceanography) to finding and attacking nuclear subs. To do the latter one would basically have to build an unmanned submarine with sufficient artificial intelligence to do the signal processing required to find and classify the target and sufficient artificial intelligence to reliably take the decision to engage it - because of the communication problems already outlined here could be no human involvement.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
I like it that a shadow defence sec is looking to the future. If it hadn't been such a transparent attempt to paper over the failings of Lab's defence policy, that is.
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
I like how the BBC article conveniently forgets to mention he was First Sea Lord, instead calling him a former Home Office minister (albeit an Admiral).
West is a very lucky Admiral, having been court-martialed for losing documents on a canal tow path.
Comments
Just as if I run a restaurant and someone orders just a steak and I garnish it with chips then I get paid for the steak that was ordered and the costs all comes out of my profit. If however someone orders chips and I garnish it with a steak then that comes out of my profit too but I don't suddenly charge them for the steak which wasn't ordered.
And yes they pay tax.
Chuck a few more red herrings in if it makes you feel a bit better.
Do you support the decriminalisation of drugs?
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
The hole you are digging is getting bigger Mr Thompson, we've been down this road before. You are clearly not stupid, but in your desire to defend and support everything this govt does your position becomes untenable. I'm not argung for or against freeview, I'm simply stating the obvious in terms of who's paying for it.
Then we'd see just how much those grooming gangs want an "under-age white slut...."
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Even more so, if Hodges tweet yesterday stands up to any scrutiny.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 16h16 hours ago
Channel 4 News can't be serious. None of the major parties has ever stuck to by-election spending limits.
Yes, in principle. The Colorado system also looks good.
In theory yes, but having spent time with users and dealers I can see enormous problems. Furthermore, and this is primarily a political site, I don't see how a political party could sell it to the electorate. Reading this thread its clear that most posters have had zero involvement with the drugs culture prevalent in society.
Just like there is Merlot and Meths.
A much greater number need education or help with mental health problems.
Test your knowledge:
21) What did the then SNP First Minister Alex Salmond prophesy in March of 2013?
a) The end of the world.
b) The second coming of Christ.
c) A second oil boom, beginning that year, which would generate tax revenues three times higher than official estimates.
https://www.facebook.com/keepbritainunited/posts/1156826107691639
An example would be Ian Beggs, the "Limbs in the Loch" murderer. In theory, he's eligible for parole in a couple of years, but I think it would be an enormous risk, given his record of violence and sexual assault, ever to let him out again.
Bronze Age burial near Stonehenge discovered by badger
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-35523757
If I'm right in these predictions, then relative to the position just after Iowa the clear loser is Rubio and the clear (relative) winner is Bush. A good performance by Kasich - perhaps even coming a clear second - is certainly possible, but in the medium term it's Bush who could be the one who gains from this failure to narrow the race decisively down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
A platform for a discussion of topics of great import.. such as AV, perhaps?
Personally I'd see the Colorado solution in for pot and treat opiate/coke addiction as a medical issue primarily.
I'd also look at how the hell so much ketamine has got into society at large. That's a bloody HORSE tranquilliser.
I don’t think you can talk about the "wider drugs problem” without looking at what is being done world-wide, or at least in other “Western” countries abou it.
I'd like to think there are fewer outrage bus season ticket holders in the HoC - but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if that particular bus company was popular in Westminster too!
There is no hole and I don't defend or support everything the govt does just things I support or when people like you post silly nonsense. In terms of who is paying for Freeview, we are. In terms of who is paying for Sky - unless we have been charged extra then we are not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35530711
I wonder if it is to protect active sources in Syria?
Shadsy now has Kasich at 5/4 to finish second (to Trump) in NH, with Rubio priced at 13/8. Laddies then go 5/1 bar these two.
The 5/1 shot is somewhat surprisingly Jeb Bush!
So I agree with your last sentence.
In the meantime it should be applied without fear or favour.
I like Crick (knew him at Uni - plays a straight bat) - I hope he's also taken (or will take) a look at Oldham - which seemed well resourced by Labour too....
Richard, that's fine in theory. People are making huge money out of human misery, they won't roll over. And then we've got politicians negotiating with poppy farmers in Afghan.
I'm just saying that the drugs world is filthy beyond most people's comprehension, we're not talking about a safety belt law here.
My whole point is that prison reform is pointless without drug reform. I don't have the answer, I'd simply like to see an acceptance and dialogue.
Who will leave their position first (DC v JC)?
David Cameron @ 15/8
I'd make Dave 5/6 or so personally.
Incidentally, there seems to be a shortage of “prescription” heroin. Odd, isn’t it!
I highly doubt the state and the courts took the decision to clamp down on this original trial so heavily and in such an unprecedented way just for the sake of it.
Also the initial run down of the story is misleading, as he was found guilty, just not of all of the charges. They are making out like a poor innocent man was tried under terrible conditions, found TOTALLY innocent and now the media can't tell you why. He wasn't, he was found innocent on preparing for immediate act of terrorism.
I wouldn't be surprised to see plenty of volatility in the betting markets in the next couple of weeks - this doesn't look a done deal for anyone.
It's very sad.
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
Treating coke addiction as a medical issue would bankrupt the UK, its primarily a middle class drug that users happily pay for, completely the opposite of heroin. Coke users don't, as a rule, shoplift from Waitrose.
Miss Plato, not unlike the Swedes, the Germans appear reluctant to let reality intrude on their politically correct utopia (although with the Crewe reports and the Rotherham disgrace, this is, sadly, a problem here as well).
#Prayforkasich
She really must think that anyone north of the Holloway Road is a complete idiot.
Lord West calling up on air to call her an idiot was priceless.
But then this is an organisation who can't call terrorists terrorists, or DAESH DAESH or Jerusalem the captial of Israel.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/trotskyist-election-results/
Interesting analysis of how the left transforms electoral failure into positive news.....
29-17 ?
So maybe something like:
Trump 28 Rubio 18 Kasich 14 Bush 13 Cruz 12 etc.
This has made my day! #banter #Glasgow https://t.co/cWd5sHpfqq
I try to promote the same sort of thing here, apart from occasional provocations, and hope it's a good advertisement for dialogue-based politics.
Is it really worth the #BrexitRisks vote stay - vote life - vote peace https://t.co/iRZw2rGVfI
Corbyn launches Labour's local elections campaign in a city with no local elections this year. https://t.co/hyWN7zetLT
Some of these Brexit Risks are rather funny.
I still think we should spend more on defence but it really does seem like we are getting much better at procurement and planning for the future, and we will have some very capable armed forces by the 2020s.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1391288/Officer-who-lost-plans-made-First-Sea-Lord.html
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
George Galloway and Seumas Milne discuss the fall of the Berlin Wall
https://t.co/jMx9dhvBYz
One of my favourites.
Alastair Stewart Verified account @alstewitn 12h12 hours ago
#BrexitRisks Germany will cordon off whole sections of Europe's beaches..oh, hang on a moment....
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/65804008.jpg
I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.
Kasich 9
Cruz 9
Trump 9
Christie 2
Rubio 2
Bush 2
Carson 2
Sanders 17
Clinton 9
Derek Sorensen
@th3Derek
Children "Just won't know what a Frenchman is." #BrexitRisks