Fair enough. My stressing his being self-made (I'd hardly say he's ordinary) was really in response to Big_G's "Starmer, the knighted millionaire human rights lawyer from London" comment.
The bigger question for me is when will @Charles's mum spill the beans on the alleged skeletons in Starmer's cupboard?
Sir Keir Starmer likes pineapple on his pizzas.
Come on... all you working class privately educated chaps need to stick together.
I'm more prolier than THEE and Sir Keir.
I have a Yorkshire accent*, so I must be working class.
*Actually it is morphing into a Mancunian accent. I'm mortified.
However, despite being followed by armed police, the terrorist was able to get his hands on a 10-inch knife with a white handle, which he stole from a shop, and attack two people on Streatham High Road before being shot dead by police.
Authorities are now refusing to explain why Amman was able to get his hands on the blade - despite being trailed by officers - or give any more details on the surveillance operation.
FFS...unless they literally stand next to a suspect day and night, going into a random shop and grabbing a knife off the shelf is always going to be possible. He was neutralized within 60s of going into the shop.
Are we going to shoot any of them that pop out to buy some new kitchenware? Cos we know what the outcry would be like.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because that’s the law and we are a law abiding country?
He was in jail for having downloaded objectionable material off the internet, nothing actually violent. Were we going to keep him locked up indefinitely? This is not as straightforward as the press and some in government are claiming.
Well if all he did was some minor infringement, why all the surveillance when he was released?
Clearly they thought that he was a threat and they were right. But do you really want to live in a country where you can be locked up indefinitely because someone in authority has deemed you a threat?
No, but if this fellow was let out early whilst being deemed dangerous enough to require such surveillance, something’s not right.
Was he let out early?
He was let out after he served half his sentence. Which is our current norm for all offences below a certain level.
We always come back to prisons costing too much. That's why I strongly feel that prisons for the worst, violent crimes should be moved to Africa. The remainder should be built in the UK's forgotten towns, and work for prisoners should be integral. Paid minimum wage, charged for board and lodging, the rest to spend or save for release.
You've been spending too long thumbing your copy of Mein Kampf again.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
They tried doing the short, hard shock approach in the 1980s. They ended up turning teenage tearaways into hardened, tough criminals.
Really your best approach is to get them addicted to chocolate, fizzy drinks and World of Warcraft in prison. They will be a drain on society but become too fat and lazy to commit any crimes. If you want to break the Islam thing you could try getting them indulging in the naughtiest side of the web too.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
They tried doing the short, hard shock approach in the 1980s. They ended up turning teenage tearaways into hardened, tough criminals.
Really your best approach is to get them addicted to chocolate, fizzy drinks and World of Warcraft in prison. They will be a drain on society but become too fat and lazy to commit any crimes.
I have a feeling that is why the prison authorities appear to turn blind eyes to the massive amount of Spice usage. If they are zombiefied. for hours on end, far less chance for trouble.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
They tried doing the short, hard shock approach in the 1980s. They ended up turning teenage tearaways into hardened, tough criminals.
Really your best approach is to get them addicted to chocolate, fizzy drinks and World of Warcraft in prison. They will be a drain on society but become too fat and lazy to commit any crimes. If you want to break the Islam thing you could try getting them indulging in the naughtiest side of the web too.
However, despite being followed by armed police, the terrorist was able to get his hands on a 10-inch knife with a white handle, which he stole from a shop, and attack two people on Streatham High Road before being shot dead by police.
Authorities are now refusing to explain why Amman was able to get his hands on the blade - despite being trailed by officers - or give any more details on the surveillance operation.
FFS...unless they literally stand next to a suspect day and night, going into a random shop and grabbing a knife off the shelf is always going to be possible. He was neutralized within 60s of going into the shop.
Are we going to shoot any of them that pop out to buy some new kitchenware? Cos we know what the outcry would be like.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because that’s the law and we are a law abiding country?
He was in jail for having downloaded objectionable material off the internet, nothing actually violent. Were we going to keep him locked up indefinitely? This is not as straightforward as the press and some in government are claiming.
Well if all he did was some minor infringement, why all the surveillance when he was released?
Part of the problem, of course, is that a lot of the violent Islamic terrorists in the UK were radicalised in prison.
But they end up stabbing people when they are outside prison...
We always come back to prisons costing too much. That's why I strongly feel that prisons for the worst, violent crimes should be moved to Africa. The remainder should be built in the UK's forgotten towns, and work for prisoners should be integral. Paid minimum wage, charged for board and lodging, the rest to spend or save for release.
How are you going to develop the economy of the forgotten towns when you are undermining the local labour market with cheap mandatory workers?
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
However, despite being followed by armed police, the terrorist was able to get his hands on a 10-inch knife with a white handle, which he stole from a shop, and attack two people on Streatham High Road before being shot dead by police.
Authorities are now refusing to explain why Amman was able to get his hands on the blade - despite being trailed by officers - or give any more details on the surveillance operation.
FFS...unless they literally stand next to a suspect day and night, going into a random shop and grabbing a knife off the shelf is always going to be possible. He was neutralized within 60s of going into the shop.
Are we going to shoot any of them that pop out to buy some new kitchenware? Cos we know what the outcry would be like.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because that’s the law and we are a law abiding country?
He was in jail for having downloaded objectionable material off the internet, nothing actually violent. Were we going to keep him locked up indefinitely? This is not as straightforward as the press and some in government are claiming.
Well if all he did was some minor infringement, why all the surveillance when he was released?
Clearly they thought that he was a threat and they were right. But do you really want to live in a country where you can be locked up indefinitely because someone in authority has deemed you a threat?
No, but if this fellow was let out early whilst being deemed dangerous enough to require such surveillance, something’s not right.
Was he let out early?
He was let out after he served half his sentence. Which is our current norm for all offences below a certain level.
Imagine the outcry if someone deemed a serious terrorist threat wasn’t let out halfway through serving their sentence!
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
They tried doing the short, hard shock approach in the 1980s. They ended up turning teenage tearaways into hardened, tough criminals.
Really your best approach is to get them addicted to chocolate, fizzy drinks and World of Warcraft in prison. They will be a drain on society but become too fat and lazy to commit any crimes.
I have a feeling that is why the prison authorities appear to turn blind eyes to the massive amount of Spice usage. If they are zombiefied. for hours on end, far less chance for trouble.
Terrorists are in Cat A prisons so they pretty much locked up for 23 and a half hours a day most days.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
I think that we need to be a lot more realistic about the efficacy and downsides of locking so many people up. Not a message politicians want to give of course.
Bloomberg is a crazy 14.5 to lay for the Presidency....I wonder if there will be some deep pocketed surrogates inflating his chances?! probably not but still a silly price
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
However, despite being followed by armed police, the terrorist was able to get his hands on a 10-inch knife with a white handle, which he stole from a shop, and attack two people on Streatham High Road before being shot dead by police.
Authorities are now refusing to explain why Amman was able to get his hands on the blade - despite being trailed by officers - or give any more details on the surveillance operation.
FFS...unless they literally stand next to a suspect day and night, going into a random shop and grabbing a knife off the shelf is always going to be possible. He was neutralized within 60s of going into the shop.
Are we going to shoot any of them that pop out to buy some new kitchenware? Cos we know what the outcry would be like.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because that’s the law and we are a law abiding country?
He was in jail for having downloaded objectionable material off the internet, nothing actually violent. Were we going to keep him locked up indefinitely? This is not as straightforward as the press and some in government are claiming.
Well if all he did was some minor infringement, why all the surveillance when he was released?
Part of the problem, of course, is that a lot of the violent Islamic terrorists in the UK were radicalised in prison.
Maybe we could try converting them to Zen Buddhism?
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
This is another issue that is gaining traction and I've mentioned a few times on PB.
Tens of thousands of people have been left out of pocket after being acquitted of serious crimes over the past four years because the government ended the reimbursement of legal fees.
More than 120,000 acquitted defendants have had to pay significant legal bills after Whitehall cut legal aid, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
Since 2014, when a means test for criminal legal aid was introduced, more than 126,000 defendants have paid for lawyers in crown court trials and been acquitted. They accounted for a third of crown court trials over that period.
A cap limiting how much of their costs acquitted defendants can claim back means that those found not guilty can pay thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Justice campaigners have called the charge “the innocence tax” and claim that it can “wipe out life savings”.
Defence lawyers fear that the likelihood of being unable to recoup legal costs on acquittal will encourage defendants to act for themselves in the crown courts, which one specialist said was as “ill-advisable as performing your own heart surgery”.
Ian Kelcey, a senior criminal defence solicitor, called on the government to “think about the reintroduction of reimbursing legal costs for acquitted defendants from central funds”.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
I suggest you read the Acheson Report on this. It’s not either/or.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
Oh yes... I am sure former colonies would be queueing up to take our violent offenders off our hands.
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
We always come back to prisons costing too much. That's why I strongly feel that prisons for the worst, violent crimes should be moved to Africa. The remainder should be built in the UK's forgotten towns, and work for prisoners should be integral. Paid minimum wage, charged for board and lodging, the rest to spend or save for release.
How are you going to develop the economy of the forgotten towns when you are undermining the local labour market with cheap mandatory workers?
You wouldn't undermine anything. You'd just be making cheap wing nuts or similar. It would complement local industries. And release a trained workforce.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
This is another issue that is gaining traction and I've mentioned a few times on PB.
Tens of thousands of people have been left out of pocket after being acquitted of serious crimes over the past four years because the government ended the reimbursement of legal fees.
More than 120,000 acquitted defendants have had to pay significant legal bills after Whitehall cut legal aid, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
Since 2014, when a means test for criminal legal aid was introduced, more than 126,000 defendants have paid for lawyers in crown court trials and been acquitted. They accounted for a third of crown court trials over that period.
A cap limiting how much of their costs acquitted defendants can claim back means that those found not guilty can pay thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Justice campaigners have called the charge “the innocence tax” and claim that it can “wipe out life savings”.
Defence lawyers fear that the likelihood of being unable to recoup legal costs on acquittal will encourage defendants to act for themselves in the crown courts, which one specialist said was as “ill-advisable as performing your own heart surgery”.
Ian Kelcey, a senior criminal defence solicitor, called on the government to “think about the reintroduction of reimbursing legal costs for acquitted defendants from central funds”.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
I suggest you read the Acheson Report on this. It’s not either/or.
Have you seen how many of the ‘terrorists’ from recent years were marijuana users?
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
This is another issue that is gaining traction and I've mentioned a few times on PB.
Tens of thousands of people have been left out of pocket after being acquitted of serious crimes over the past four years because the government ended the reimbursement of legal fees.
More than 120,000 acquitted defendants have had to pay significant legal bills after Whitehall cut legal aid, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
Since 2014, when a means test for criminal legal aid was introduced, more than 126,000 defendants have paid for lawyers in crown court trials and been acquitted. They accounted for a third of crown court trials over that period.
A cap limiting how much of their costs acquitted defendants can claim back means that those found not guilty can pay thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Justice campaigners have called the charge “the innocence tax” and claim that it can “wipe out life savings”.
Defence lawyers fear that the likelihood of being unable to recoup legal costs on acquittal will encourage defendants to act for themselves in the crown courts, which one specialist said was as “ill-advisable as performing your own heart surgery”.
Ian Kelcey, a senior criminal defence solicitor, called on the government to “think about the reintroduction of reimbursing legal costs for acquitted defendants from central funds”.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
But you are trying to demonstrate a causal relationship the other way...
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
If the sentence is too low, the prosecution already has the power to get it increased. Judges are held to strict guidelines on sentencing. Their involvement ends there. It is the prison authorities and the Parole Board who determine, again in accordance with the law and relevant guidelines, whether someone can be released early and what conditions can be imposed on their release.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
If there was a cause and effect in the way you are hypothesising many people would be!
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
Oh yes... I am sure former colonies would be queueing up to take our violent offenders off our hands.
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
I am not sure why you think they wouldn't. It would be a profitable, as well as a noble task.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
I suggest you read the Acheson Report on this. It’s not either/or.
Have you seen how many of the ‘terrorists’ from recent years were marijuana users?
Name a terrorist incident from the last decade...
And all of them were also weaned on extremist Islamist ideology, something you appear to ignore and which our prison system is poor at dealing with.
This is another issue that is gaining traction and I've mentioned a few times on PB.
Tens of thousands of people have been left out of pocket after being acquitted of serious crimes over the past four years because the government ended the reimbursement of legal fees.
More than 120,000 acquitted defendants have had to pay significant legal bills after Whitehall cut legal aid, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
Since 2014, when a means test for criminal legal aid was introduced, more than 126,000 defendants have paid for lawyers in crown court trials and been acquitted. They accounted for a third of crown court trials over that period.
A cap limiting how much of their costs acquitted defendants can claim back means that those found not guilty can pay thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Justice campaigners have called the charge “the innocence tax” and claim that it can “wipe out life savings”.
Defence lawyers fear that the likelihood of being unable to recoup legal costs on acquittal will encourage defendants to act for themselves in the crown courts, which one specialist said was as “ill-advisable as performing your own heart surgery”.
Ian Kelcey, a senior criminal defence solicitor, called on the government to “think about the reintroduction of reimbursing legal costs for acquitted defendants from central funds”.
In Scotland there has never been a right to recoup costs. But then costs are not awarded against you either. Historically legal aid was more widely available than I understand to be the case in England but this has been restricted in recent years.
However, despite being followed by armed police, the terrorist was able to get his hands on a 10-inch knife with a white handle, which he stole from a shop, and attack two people on Streatham High Road before being shot dead by police.
Authorities are now refusing to explain why Amman was able to get his hands on the blade - despite being trailed by officers - or give any more details on the surveillance operation.
FFS...unless they literally stand next to a suspect day and night, going into a random shop and grabbing a knife off the shelf is always going to be possible. He was neutralized within 60s of going into the shop.
Are we going to shoot any of them that pop out to buy some new kitchenware? Cos we know what the outcry would be like.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Yes. There will be costs to society for doing so. But it's not a quick fix all to what some want.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
rch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
If there was a cause and effect in the way you are hypothesising many people would be!
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
Millions of people use marijuana. How many end as terrorists? Terrorists are often alienated from society and contemptuous of its norms. How many do you want to lock up?
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
But you are trying to demonstrate a causal relationship the other way...
So the fact that a majority of terrorists were also marijuana users, a drug that is linked to schizophrenia, is neither here nor there? I have a strong feeling we will see a big change of heart on this one in a decade or two
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Only 296 votes in though. It reminds me a bit of the cancelled Selzer poll result.
What's the source for those numbers?
A secret organization called the Associated Press (joking a bit). Plus I add all the satellite caucus results that have been announced but the AP hasn't yet tabulated.
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Why let out prisoners who require such close surveillance?
Because you can only jail people for the length of the sentence given them by the judge.
There are - in exception circumstances - whole life, or indeterminate, sentences. But the government doesn't get the choice to decide someone has to stay in prison longer than their sentence.
Well the judges who sentence people that are not fit for release upon serving the time they thought appropriate should face some kind of stewards enquiry with possible demotion
do any of it. the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
Marijuana use a far better indicator than Islamic ideology for predicting ‘terrorist’ activity. The link is ridiculous
I suggest you read the Acheson Report on this. It’s not either/or.
Have you seen how many of the ‘terrorists’ from recent years were marijuana users?
Name a terrorist incident from the last decade...
And all of them were also weaned on extremist Islamist ideology, something you appear to ignore and which our prison system is poor at dealing with.
Yes, their minds are wrecked by drugs and the leftovers fertile ground for twisted ideology
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
Oh yes... I am sure former colonies would be queueing up to take our violent offenders off our hands.
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
I am not sure why you think they wouldn't. It would be a profitable, as well as a noble task.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I did read that a lot of these terrorists are actually very bad Muslims in their early life but then have an event that makes them devout.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
And it’s not only Muslims that become terrorists after drug use.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Yes, technically I could drink alcohol but so long as I don't get drunk I'd be fine.
Obviously I'd put my Mum six feet under if she thought I had drunk alcohol.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I can't remember which podcast I heard this on (might have been Sam Harris), but they had an academic on who had looked at the path of those who had been radicalised.
One common path is an individual gets involved in being a general little shit as a youth (not religious, drinking and now these days smoking weed), which leads to low level crime.
Then they are radicalised by those telling them they all about their Muslim heritage, and that the only way to make amends is to follow a devout path in order to atone for past mistakes.
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Teasing out cause-and-effect is a tricky thing.
All well and good, but I’m prepared to say I absolutely believe that schizophrenia follows heavy marijuana use in the way lung cancer does with cigarettes
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
Oh yes... I am sure former colonies would be queueing up to take our violent offenders off our hands.
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
I am not sure why you think they wouldn't. It would be a profitable, as well as a noble task.
Political dead end for local governments I'd have thought.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I did read that a lot of these terrorists are actually very bad Muslims in their early life but then have an event that makes them devout.
I'm so glad I've always been a very good Muslim*.
*I'm as much a good Muslim as I am working class.
Don’t they work on the basis that once they achieve martyrdom all is forgiven? I have a vague recollection of the 9/11 bombers behaving that way.
We need prisons in sub-saharan Africa for these people. Real redemption sometimes requires a big life change.
I don't think we have any Empire left there for a penal colony, though we do have a few South Atlantic islands that might be suitable.
They don't have to be in the Empire. Though they probably would be Commonwealth members. I would propose that the prisons be run by organisations within the host country to an agreed standard, and the UK pay for the inmates. It would be a great boost to the chosen country's economy.
And this helps integrate them back into the community, rebuild relationships with family members where appropriate how exactly. A policy like that only worked when they didn’t come back.
As I said, the system would be two tier. The prisons for the worst, most violent crimes would the ones in Africa, with the remainder in the UK. When very much reformed, they could return to the UK.
Oh yes... I am sure former colonies would be queueing up to take our violent offenders off our hands.
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
I am not sure why you think they wouldn't. It would be a profitable, as well as a noble task.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I did read that a lot of these terrorists are actually very bad Muslims in their early life but then have an event that makes them devout.
I'm so glad I've always been a very good Muslim*.
*I'm as much a good Muslim as I am working class.
Don’t they work on the basis that once they achieve martyrdom all is forgiven? I have a vague recollection of the 9/11 bombers behaving that way.
Something like that, more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who do not need to repent etc.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I did read that a lot of these terrorists are actually very bad Muslims in their early life but then have an event that makes them devout.
I'm so glad I've always been a very good Muslim*.
*I'm as much a good Muslim as I am working class.
Don’t they work on the basis that once they achieve martyrdom all is forgiven? I have a vague recollection of the 9/11 bombers behaving that way.
Many are indoctrinated that THE only way to have past sins forgiven is martyrdom, and if they don't they will suffer even more painful death.
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Teasing out cause-and-effect is a tricky thing.
All well and good, but I’m prepared to say I absolutely believe that schizophrenia follows heavy marijuana use in the way lung cancer does with cigarettes
I think that I have mentioned on here before that a leading psychiatrist pointed out to me that there had been an explosion in the use of cannabis but that the diagnosis rate for schizophrenia was pretty much unchanged. His position was that if you had a propensity towards schizophrenia then cannabis might accelerate it, especially with teenage boys, and it might deepen it. But it doesn’t seem to cause it.
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Teasing out cause-and-effect is a tricky thing.
All well and good, but I’m prepared to say I absolutely believe that schizophrenia follows heavy marijuana use in the way lung cancer does with cigarettes
I think that I have mentioned on here before that a leading psychiatrist pointed out to me that there had been an explosion in the use of cannabis but that the diagnosis rate for schizophrenia was pretty much unchanged. His position was that if you had a propensity towards schizophrenia then cannabis might accelerate it, especially with teenage boys, and it might deepen it. But it doesn’t seem to cause it.
Although I hear the voices are getting smarter: they now tell you to deny hearing them if anyone asks.
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Teasing out cause-and-effect is a tricky thing.
All well and good, but I’m prepared to say I absolutely believe that schizophrenia follows heavy marijuana use in the way lung cancer does with cigarettes
I think that I have mentioned on here before that a leading psychiatrist pointed out to me that there had been an explosion in the use of cannabis but that the diagnosis rate for schizophrenia was pretty much unchanged. His position was that if you had a propensity towards schizophrenia then cannabis might accelerate it, especially with teenage boys, and it might deepen it. But it doesn’t seem to cause it.
Although I hear the voices are getting smarter: they now tell you to deny hearing them if anyone asks.
That’s the classic catch 22 used by psychiatrists. You either accept that you are mad or you have no insight into your condition.
I believe this is a story from the Quran that is commonly used element to convert past sinners....
But if a Muslim's faith is imperfect or if he has sinned during life by, for example, failing repeatedly to undertake purity rituals before prayer, then the grave is transformed into an oppressive, constricting space. The earth begins to weigh down heavily upon the sentient corpse, until the rib cage collapses; worms begin to nibble away at the flesh, causing horrible pain."
I believe this is a story from the Quran that is commonly used element to convert past sinners....
But if a Muslim's faith is imperfect or if he has sinned during life by, for example, failing repeatedly to undertake purity rituals before prayer, then the grave is transformed into an oppressive, constricting space. The earth begins to weigh down heavily upon the sentient corpse, until the rib cage collapses; worms begin to nibble away at the flesh, causing horrible pain."
The trick, apparently, is to die after a good bottle of red wine. The corpse is then only barely sentient, and you're unlikely to notice the worms nibbling away.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
Actually, devout Muslims can't smoke weed. The Koran says no to intoxication, not to alcohol.
Yes, technically I could drink alcohol but so long as I don't get drunk I'd be fine.
Obviously I'd put my Mum six feet under if she thought I had drunk alcohol.
Not many people are terrorists. How many used Marijuana?
Devout Muslims don't drink. Muslim terrorists are likely to be devout. They can smoke weed. Not saying there isn't a cause and effect the other way too.
I did read that a lot of these terrorists are actually very bad Muslims in their early life but then have an event that makes them devout.
Ironically, though informative, it doesn't say why! It just notes that productivity is higher in the highest-productivity areas... As the video says, less than 1% of jobs in NYC are Big Tech, so that sectoral story cannot be mostly what is going on. But it is more convincing if service jobs, in general, attract the more skillful and ambitious people or the more risk-taking people to work in firms together, less skillful or less ambitious people to work in lower-stress locations, and so on.
Also, regarding that story earler today about the press briefing: twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1224409797082189826?s=20
Other journalists (including a Guardian journalist) seem to say there is. The issue seems to be who was doing the briefing and the issue to be discussed when have an "inner lobby".
Only 296 votes in though. It reminds me a bit of the cancelled Selzer poll result.
What's the source for those numbers?
Klobouchar performing very well there. But I think the demographics of the early results may be very unrepresentative. They seem to be (a) pensioners able to spend months away in warmer climate (b) shift workers and students and (c) Sanders campaign organisers who want to get their votes registered before the main effort later. (a) will be very wealthy and probably centrist; (b) will be quite pro-Sanders and (c) will entirely be pro-Sanders.
Comments
Really your best approach is to get them addicted to chocolate, fizzy drinks and World of Warcraft in prison. They will be a drain on society but become too fat and lazy to commit any crimes. If you want to break the Islam thing you could try getting them indulging in the naughtiest side of the web too.
https://twitter.com/NStewCBS2/status/1224467370854449154
Who was from MINNESOTA.
That means you can take it as a sign for either Sanders or Klobuchar.
You can also say it will boost rural turnout over urban, favouring Klobuchar and Buttigieg.
Schemes to try and wean Islamists off their ideology are poor, ineffective and not properly funded and supported. There is strong evidence that prisons become places of radicalisation and that the authorities are too scared / unwilling to deal with this. The recent Acheson Report deals with this in some detail. There is plenty of knowledge and expertise around about what needs to be done but a great unwillingness to do any of it.
Instead of which people come up with silly wheezes like yours. I don’t mean to be personal. The people who ought to pay a penalty are the Ministers who have made such a mess of our criminal justice and prisons system. Grayling, for instance. What penalty has he paid for the multiple fuck ups he has been responsible for? What penalty has the political party of which he was such a prominent Cabinet Minister for so long paid for the fuck-up it has made of the criminal justice system?
You tell me. An 80-seat majority and its 10th year in power. The public is getting what it voted for: criminals released early onto the streets of our country because, for all the wailing now, it didn’t and doesn’t really care about having a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
So, frankly, the public can go and do one. If it won’t will the means, it won’t get the ends. It prefers to put its faith in politicians who lie about the reality and think that sound bites and rushed laws are a substitute for good policy. They aren’t. So on we lurch from crisis to crisis. It’s the Will of the People.
*Tagging as it is commonly known.
But for terrorist related offences it is expected they serve two thirds of their sentence.
Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 20%
Klobuchar 19%
Warren 15%
Biden 13%
Yang 2%
Steyer 1%
Only 296 votes in though.
It reminds me a bit of the cancelled Selzer poll result.
GO PETE!!
Tens of thousands of people have been left out of pocket after being acquitted of serious crimes over the past four years because the government ended the reimbursement of legal fees.
More than 120,000 acquitted defendants have had to pay significant legal bills after Whitehall cut legal aid, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
Since 2014, when a means test for criminal legal aid was introduced, more than 126,000 defendants have paid for lawyers in crown court trials and been acquitted. They accounted for a third of crown court trials over that period.
A cap limiting how much of their costs acquitted defendants can claim back means that those found not guilty can pay thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Justice campaigners have called the charge “the innocence tax” and claim that it can “wipe out life savings”.
Defence lawyers fear that the likelihood of being unable to recoup legal costs on acquittal will encourage defendants to act for themselves in the crown courts, which one specialist said was as “ill-advisable as performing your own heart surgery”.
Ian Kelcey, a senior criminal defence solicitor, called on the government to “think about the reintroduction of reimbursing legal costs for acquitted defendants from central funds”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/innocent-are-left-with-enormous-bills-after-cutbacks-in-legal-aid-7ljqbpdrv
A friend of mine is £70,000 out of pocket after being found innocent.
His father has delayed his retirement for about five years because of this when his health demands he should ease off.
Why Tech Firms Flock to Expensive Cities | WSJ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50vRNNGqlp4
Not.
FFS! What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
Name a terrorist incident from the last decade...
I love it.
Our local team (Belfast Giants) are decent.
Plus I add all the satellite caucus results that have been announced but the AP hasn't yet tabulated.
I can't find the full Archeson Report, it seems to be classified. Do you think this is necessary?
I can only find the summary here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/islamist-extremism-in-prisons-probation-and-youth-justice/summary-of-the-main-findings-of-the-review-of-islamist-extremism-in-prisons-probation-and-youth-justice
Have you ever visited a mental asylum?
If you do, there's one overwhelming thing you'll remember above all else: the persistent stench of cigarettes. If you're a schizophrenic, your chance of being a smoker must approach 100%.
But I don't think anyone thinks smoking causes mental illness. It's that people with schizophrenia, and other mental diseases, are drawn to smoking.
Teasing out cause-and-effect is a tricky thing.
I'm so glad I've always been a very good Muslim*.
*I'm as much a good Muslim as I am working class.
Obviously I'd put my Mum six feet under if she thought I had drunk alcohol.
One common path is an individual gets involved in being a general little shit as a youth (not religious, drinking and now these days smoking weed), which leads to low level crime.
Then they are radicalised by those telling them they all about their Muslim heritage, and that the only way to make amends is to follow a devout path in order to atone for past mistakes.
8:45pm Eastern we'll start seeing results, apparently. Which is 1:45am UK time.
It's going to be verrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.
I've got a feeling* that the story tonight is going to be Biden's failure.
* This feeling could be completely wrong
Tristan da Cunha on the other hand has no strip - and you might have to wait weeks before you can even land at Edinburgh of the Seven Seas.
Once landed, they could take the stones off the golf course. Or go to the Potato Fields.
Or throw themselves into the volcano when it all became too much. After about a fortnight.
I've found a number of reports that cite the damn thing, A HJS Report and a house of commons briefing. They should keep me going overnight.
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Prison-Management-Report.pdf
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7487/CBP-7487.pdf
But if a Muslim's faith is imperfect or if he has sinned during life by, for example, failing repeatedly to undertake purity rituals before prayer, then the grave is transformed into an oppressive, constricting space. The earth begins to weigh down heavily upon the sentient corpse, until the rib cage collapses; worms begin to nibble away at the flesh, causing horrible pain."
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/opinion/04iht-edhalevi.1.5565834.html
Epic trolling
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1224464555151167489?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1224409797082189826?s=20
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/1224473798126317571?s=20