politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first state to decide voted but because of a technical cock-up we don’t know who won
For those expecting to wake up to discover who has won the Iowa caucuses then I’m sorry. I stayed up all night and went to bed at 5 a.m. without knowing what had happened.
Someone mentioned Nick Clegg's lack of self-awareness. Look at the very first shot of the LibDems' Say Goodbye to Broken Promises video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
Someone mentioned Nick Clegg's lack of self-awareness. Look at the very first shot of the LibDems' Say Goodbye to Broken Promises video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
The trouble with VAR for handball or offside is that it takes forever and does not replace the referee's subjective opinion with an objective one (like in tennis) but with another subjective view but from a different camera angle and repeated viewings.
Staying up all night for what is really a pretty inconsequential election in a pretty inconsequential state ... there's keen for you as our Welsh brethren might say. It rather reminds me of the huge Press Corps, not to mention the England Manager and his entourage attending in person the draw for a major football competition, as if their presence has even the tiniest impact on the outcome. Why not simply stay at home instead and hear it live, together with the international reaction, broadcast on the world's media. If he wants to follow the really big U.S. political story, I'd suggest OGH instead closely follows Michael Bloomberg's steady progress to The White House, looking like value at 14 on the Betfair Exchange. DYOR.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
Damien Williams touchdown in the Superbowl was basically "umpire's call". If you need to look at anything in any sport 3 or 4 times, stick with the original decision.
Staying up all night for what is really a pretty inconsequential election in a pretty inconsequential state ... there's keen for you as our Welsh brethren might say. It rather reminds me of the huge Press Corps, not to mention the England Manager and his entourage attending in person the draw for a major football competition, as if their presence has even the tiniest impact on the outcome. Why not simply stay at home instead and hear it live, together with the international reaction, broadcast on the world's media. If he wants to follow the really big U.S. political story, I'd suggest OGH instead closely follows Michael Bloomberg's steady progress to The White House, looking like value at 14 on the Betfair Exchange. DYOR.
Bloomberg having some distance from the Iowa clown troupe can't have done him any harm.
This is kinda great news for Biden, who may suffer less from what looks like weak a Iowa performance thanks to no-one learning he's come 3rd/4th until he's virtually inaugurated.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
Damien Williams touchdown in the Superbowl was basically "umpire's call". If you need to look at anything in any sport 3 or 4 times, stick with the original decision.
I've always wondered at what point it is ok to call a dead heat in a horse race without getting into the millimetres of it via increasingly accurate photos.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
Damien Williams touchdown in the Superbowl was basically "umpire's call". If you need to look at anything in any sport 3 or 4 times, stick with the original decision.
I've always wondered at what point it is ok to call a dead heat in a horse race without getting into the millimetres of it via increasingly accurate photos.
In pro cycling it goes down to the individual pixels of the photo finish. It's happened twice that I can recall - once in the U23 WC road race.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
VAR is indeed fine. It just needs a bit of fettling.
We simply cannot go back to completely wrong decisions being given. If it cannot be decided in 30 sec, then the refs decision should stand.
The reaction in football to VAR (here I'm talking about the incessant complaints about it, nit the way in which foitball stubbornly and uniquely refused to consider any way of improving its decision making before suddenly acting as if it had invented the idea if using technology) does nothing to allay my suspicion that many football fans aren't actually that into sport as the rest of us understand it, they're into drama.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
VAR is indeed fine. It just needs a bit of fettling.
We simply cannot go back to completely wrong decisions being given. If it cannot be decided in 30 sec, then the refs decision should stand.
DRS, and before it, Duckworth-Lewis, took a bit of getting used to, but TBH, as one who watches quite a bit of county and indeed local cricket I rather miss DRS when it isn't there. Of course my group of cricket-watchers at Essex can always tell when an LBW decision is wrong, or whether the ball has been nicked, even when we are sitting in the stands quite a way away and not behind the bowlers arm.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
The trouble with VAR for handball or offside is that it takes forever and does not replace the referee's subjective opinion with an objective one (like in tennis) but with another subjective view but from a different camera angle and repeated viewings.
To do a cricket analogy then multiple angles for handball is fair enough, like a stumping/run out or even a low catch which go frame by frame or multiple angles and even predate DRS.
VAR for offside is what really should have the Umpire's Call element like the ball tracker in DRS. DRS ball tracker takes a moment to appear but the second it appears the result is there with the trafic light coding - no squabbling.
In DRS the whole ball width needs to be either on the stumps or off the stumps for it not to be umpire's call - I'd use the same logic in football. The moment the lines appear if they are not at least a football's width apart then stick with the on field referees call. If they are at least a football's width apart then you have an instant decision from VAR. Job done.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
Damien Williams touchdown in the Superbowl was basically "umpire's call". If you need to look at anything in any sport 3 or 4 times, stick with the original decision.
That TD was by not so much millimeters as microns.
Kinda feel sorry for Pete as he won't get the big headlines he needed heading into the more diverse states. On second hand I cant stand the guy, but I'm not sure why.....
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
The trouble with VAR for handball or offside is that it takes forever and does not replace the referee's subjective opinion with an objective one (like in tennis) but with another subjective view but from a different camera angle and repeated viewings.
To do a cricket analogy then multiple angles for handball is fair enough, like a stumping/run out or even a low catch which go frame by frame or multiple angles and even predate DRS.
VAR for offside is what really should have the Umpire's Call element like the ball tracker in DRS. DRS ball tracker takes a moment to appear but the second it appears the result is there with the trafic light coding - no squabbling.
In DRS the whole ball width needs to be either on the stumps or off the stumps for it not to be umpire's call - I'd use the same logic in football. The moment the lines appear if they are not at least a football's width apart then stick with the on field referees call. If they are at least a football's width apart then you have an instant decision from VAR. Job done.
Take offside, even if we grant that whether a player is offside or not can be determined objectively by VAR and cleverly drawn, pixel-wide lines, the trouble is there is then a highly subjective decision about whether the offside player is interfering with play. There is no scientifically objective truth to be discovered by VAR.
We should agree to allow American imports so long as it can be labelled and the customer's choice. Reasonable compromise.
Three problems with that:-
1. The Americans have consistently stated that they don’t want labels. They view labelling as a non-tariff barrier though I expect their real concern is that people would choose not to have their food precisely because of concerns about health or animal welfare.
2. Labelling does not deal with food used by processing industries etc so people could find themselves having it even if they don’t want it.
3. If production methods are illegal here we simply should not permit the import of stuff produced using such methods regardless of labelling. That would be like saying that we would allow unsafe car seats for babies to be imported and sold here provided they were labelled as such. It’s nonsensical.
I do not see the need for an FTA with the US so I certainly would not compromise on this point. But I rather fear that this government will in its desperation for a deal.
VAR is fine they just need to introduce a football equivalent of Umpires Call then get on with it.
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
The trouble with VAR for handball or offside is that it takes forever and does not replace the referee's subjective opinion with an objective one (like in tennis) but with another subjective view but from a different camera angle and repeated viewings.
To do a cricket analogy then multiple angles for handball is fair enough, like a stumping/run out or even a low catch which go frame by frame or multiple angles and even predate DRS.
VAR for offside is what really should have the Umpire's Call element like the ball tracker in DRS. DRS ball tracker takes a moment to appear but the second it appears the result is there with the trafic light coding - no squabbling.
In DRS the whole ball width needs to be either on the stumps or off the stumps for it not to be umpire's call - I'd use the same logic in football. The moment the lines appear if they are not at least a football's width apart then stick with the on field referees call. If they are at least a football's width apart then you have an instant decision from VAR. Job done.
Take offside, even if we grant that whether a player is offside or not can be determined objectively by VAR and cleverly drawn, pixel-wide lines, the trouble is there is then a highly subjective decision about whether the offside player is interfering with play. There is no scientifically objective truth to be discovered by VAR.
That's simple, let the referee determine who was interfering with play. That's his job. If he needs to check the pitchside monitor that should also be his job.
So there's a dude from the Sanders campaign on the Poyo Discord (Poyo is a cat with very soft fur who likes to make scam markets on Augur) who reckons Bernie has 100% complete precinct data. If he only released 40%, maybe that means he didn't win.
We should agree to allow American imports so long as it can be labelled and the customer's choice. Reasonable compromise.
Three problems with that:-
1. The Americans have consistently stated that they don’t want labels. They view labelling as a non-tariff barrier though I expect their real concern is that people would choose not to have their food precisely because of concerns about health or animal welfare.
2. Labelling does not deal with food used by processing industries etc so people could find themselves having it even if they don’t want it.
3. If production methods are illegal here we simply should not permit the import of stuff produced using such methods regardless of labelling. That would be like saying that we would allow unsafe car seats for babies to be imported and sold here provided they were labelled as such. It’s nonsensical.
I do not see the need for an FTA with the US so I certainly would not compromise on this point. But I rather fear that this government will in its desperation for a deal.
1. They may say that but I'm suggesting a compromise. Up to them if they agree to it or not.
2. True but I don't care so much about that. If you're buying processed foods there's all sorts of steps in the middle, if you want control over your food then that's for fresh food. And if the people in the middle of processed foods have a verified supply chain they should be able to label it as per step 1.
3. There's already all sort of hypocrisy in the law. Taxis don't need baby seats. If there's a scientific reason for it to be illegal then we can stick with that ban, but if its just cultural or whatever and there's no science behind it I'd rather see the ban lifted anyway domestically too.
I bought some petrol this morning and after paying the cashier handed me a folded up newspaper and said "for you", I said "thank you", turned to walk off then saw that it was The Sun. I just handed the cashier the paper back and said "I'm from Merseyside" and he laughed.
I wouldn't read The Sun if you paid me to, not just for free.
Rentoul being silly there. Starmer's not the PM and therefore doesn't have information to brief journalists about except for party political stuff. Nobody is saying the Tories can't have a press conference with anyone they like, but a Number 10 briefing is supposed to be non-partisan.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
Rentoul being silly there. Starmer's not the PM and therefore doesn't have information to brief journalists about except for party political stuff. Nobody is saying the Tories can't have a press conference with anyone they like, but a Number 10 briefing is supposed to be non-partisan.
It wasn't partisan, though, unless you are seriously going to argue that the Guardian was being especially favoured for partisan reasons.
We should agree to allow American imports so long as it can be labelled and the customer's choice. Reasonable compromise.
Three problems with that:-
1. The Americans have consistently stated that they don’t want labels. They view labelling as a non-tariff barrier though I expect their real concern is that people would choose not to have their food precisely because of concerns about health or animal welfare.
2. Labelling does not deal with food used by processing industries etc so people could find themselves having it even if they don’t want it.
3. If production methods are illegal here we simply should not permit the import of stuff produced using such methods regardless of labelling. That would be like saying that we would allow unsafe car seats for babies to be imported and sold here provided they were labelled as such. It’s nonsensical.
I do not see the need for an FTA with the US so I certainly would not compromise on this point. But I rather fear that this government will in its desperation for a deal.
So on point 3 would you ban the import of items produced in countries which don't have similar employment and environmental regulations as the UK ?
I bought some petrol this morning and after paying the cashier handed me a folded up newspaper and said "for you", I said "thank you", turned to walk off then saw that it was The Sun. I just handed the cashier the paper back and said "I'm from Merseyside" and he laughed.
I wouldn't read The Sun if you paid me to, not just for free.
Rentoul being silly there. Starmer's not the PM and therefore doesn't have information to brief journalists about except for party political stuff. Nobody is saying the Tories can't have a press conference with anyone they like, but a Number 10 briefing is supposed to be non-partisan.
While I'm entirely accepting of Rentoul's ability to be silly, that's the Hodgemeister.
Already had people from Latvia today offering the same type of deal. I'm already looking at the work required to set up in the States, setting something virtual up in Europe at the same time is probably a sane plan.
They warned us that Iowa might be close. They warned us that we might have three different winners this morning. But no-one warned us that we might have zero winners this morning. Well, almost no-one...
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
The author reveals his preference on the last line, but the article seems scrupulously objective.
Agree, excellent article and since I couldn't have guessed the author's preference until the last line I'm happy it didn't influence the analysis beforehand.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
Basically you can either de-radicalise effectively, or you can lock up forever. Either would require much more funding than the government seems willing to spend - but the former would be both cheaper, and more realistic.
Permanently incarcerating individuals who may originally have been sentenced for only three years is simply not going to work.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
Isn't half the problem with Sunday's attack is that for the 2 years and 2 months he was inside he was being re-educted into someone even more militant.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
That simply does not seem to be true. At the moment, our incarceration policies seem to be resulting in more, not fewer, dangerously radicalised individuals.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
Given how weak Irish Labour is, I think there is effectively an opening on the left that is not orgaised simpyl around Irish reunification, although the message does play well
So they didn't stress-test the app nor the telephone standby. Oooo-kayy.
(cries quietly in IT support)
I love the way things not just go wrong, they go wrong in predictable ways. Hey, let's put a major IT change into production at the time of its maximum usage! What could possibly for wrong???
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
Isn't half the problem with Sunday's attack is that for the 2 years and 2 months he was inside he was being re-educted into someone even more militant.
Yes. Though probably more than half of the problem.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
Part of it is simply the unpopularity of the alternatives:
- FF are still tainted by the unholy mess they made of the economy leading up to the financial crisis, which hit Ireland so badly; - FG have been hit partly by the normal strains of being in government, and partly by some unforced errors of their own, with housing and healthcare both bad issues for them; - Labour are still tainted by their coalition with FG in the post-crash government which had to impose swingeing austerity; - The Greens were badly tainted by the coalition with FF before the financial crash but are the only party (apart from SF) who are now on the up.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
That simply does not seem to be true. At the moment, our incarceration policies seem to be resulting in more, not fewer, dangerously radicalised individuals.
How many radicalised individuals commit terrorist atrocities from inside prison?
This guy was radicalised before he went inside. That's why he was jailed in the first place.
We should agree to allow American imports so long as it can be labelled and the customer's choice. Reasonable compromise.
Three problems with that:-
1. The Americans have consistently stated that they don’t want labels. They view labelling as a non-tariff barrier though I expect their real concern is that people would choose not to have their food precisely because of concerns about health or animal welfare.
2. Labelling does not deal with food used by processing industries etc so people could find themselves having it even if they don’t want it.
3. If production methods are illegal here we simply should not permit the import of stuff produced using such methods regardless of labelling. That would be like saying that we would allow unsafe car seats for babies to be imported and sold here provided they were labelled as such. It’s nonsensical.
I do not see the need for an FTA with the US so I certainly would not compromise on this point. But I rather fear that this government will in its desperation for a deal.
So on point 3 would you ban the import of items produced in countries which don't have similar employment and environmental regulations as the UK ?
It depends - where the product is unsafe or potentially so, yes. If it undermines our environmental standards, yes again. If it is produced by child labour or slave labour, again yes. If the product is safe etc but the country concerned simply has a 42 hour week and only 3 weeks paid holiday a year then no.
We have animal welfare and environmental standards for a reason. Allowing the import of food which does not share those standards is not just a risk to our health but also risks our home grown industry. That means we lose choice, risk our health and degrade our environment. That is - to me - too high a price to pay.
Having different laws on holiday pay or pensions does not have the same prejudicial effects on consumers, producers here or our wider society. Use of slave/child labour is abhorrent for other reasons.
There is little point in claiming that we have high standards in an area and then allow imports which have the effect of undermining or eliminating those very standards. Either they matter to us or they don’t. If they matter then we stand up for them.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
It was briefly discussed. @Philip_Thompson wanted to know if Sinn Fein in the Republic had different policies than the party in the north. Apart from some knowledgeable contributors, PB doesn't really do Ireland, although hopefully it'll up its game for this one.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
To be fair it's 20+, 20+ and 20+ for the three main parties with Labour and the Greens splitting most of the rest. No-one seems to want to go into coalition with SinnFein though
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
And that is why the Acheson Report is so important. It is the failures of our re-education/deradicalisation initiatives that is the issue here, something which is being deliberately ignored in the focus on extending the sentences.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
Indeed I agree. But removing the tourniquet without addressing the underlying issue is not a solution either.
Murderers and attempted murderers (and terrorists) should get automatic whole life sentences to be released only if they satisfy the parole board that they are now safe.
Any recidivism should lead to an investigation as to what the parole board got wrong.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
Kids born and brought up in Britain being semi-radicalised and then completing the process in prison.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
And that is why the Acheson Report is so important. It is the failures of our re-education/deradicalisation initiatives that is the issue here, something which is being deliberately ignored in the focus on extending the sentences.
The two go hand in hand. It's ok to try to deradicalise people but unless or until that is done there should be a whole life sentence.
Carrot and stick. It's not either/or, we need both.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
The Lizard People must be getting really pissed off.....
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
Kids born and brought up in Britain being semi-radicalised and then completing the process in prison.
If they're radicalised by the time they are due to be released then they shouldn't be getting released. And considering he was in prison for a terrorism offence I think he might just have been radicalised before this prison sentence too.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
The ‘real problem ‘ being the radicalisation of the inmates and our failure to de-radicalise them effectively.
Complete deradicalisation is impossible without a draconian repression of free speech that would grossly impinge upon the rights of everybody else. Some are always going to slip through the net.
Its impossible to stop young men getting access to radicalising material in a free society.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
The 'real problem' being what exactly ?'
Kids born and brought up in Britain being semi-radicalised and then completing the process in prison.
As far as I can tell, the only evidence for this in regards to Streatham is the perpetrator's mother. She said he had been on the internet, which strikes me as odd as I'd have thought such prisoners wouldn't (or, rather, shouldn't) have internet access.
Whilst we're waiting for the Iowans to add up a few numbers, have we covered the latest Irish poll showing Sinn Féin in the lead?
How on earth has that happened?
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
The Lizard People must be getting really pissed off.....
I thought the Tories were selling themselves as anti establishment? As for the nutty element, too fecking many to mention.
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
That simply does not seem to be true. At the moment, our incarceration policies seem to be resulting in more, not fewer, dangerously radicalised individuals.
But all the while they remain locked up, whilst costing us lots of money, they most definitely aren't killing people no matter how radicalised they are. It's letting said dangerously radicalised types out which then allows them to kill people on a practical level.
What doesn't seem to be working very well is attempting to half-heartedly deradicalise, then letting them go. It seems quite a lot of them are like Toad of Toad Hall in the smoking room, quite content to be reformed to be released, then return to their old ways once outside.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
It works the way a tourniquet works; temporarily, causing damage in itself and with extremely serious consequences if the real problem isn't fixed.
Indeed I agree. But removing the tourniquet without addressing the underlying issue is not a solution either.
Murderers and attempted murderers (and terrorists) should get automatic whole life sentences to be released only if they satisfy the parole board that they are now safe.
Any recidivism should lead to an investigation as to what the parole board got wrong.
The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this. And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law. I do not think that would turn out well.
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
And that is why the Acheson Report is so important. It is the failures of our re-education/deradicalisation initiatives that is the issue here, something which is being deliberately ignored in the focus on extending the sentences.
The two go hand in hand. It's ok to try to deradicalise people but unless or until that is done there should be a whole life sentence.
Carrot and stick. It's not either/or, we need both.
There's no simple, or simplistic, answer is there. If you give someone with a tendency to violent action no hope of release, and like-minded 'neighbours' then you're preparing for a riot. And a riot where if the rioters die, in their minds they're martyrs.
To add further complication in Ireland, the vote in Tipperary is going to have to be delayed until the end of the month because one of the candidates has sadly suddenly died. It returns 5 TDs, and the fact that they won't be in place is likely to be significant in the jostling to form a government after the election.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
Thanks for that Ms Cyclefree. Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
The current government sees everything through a political prism and look to what resonates with their base; locking people up does that job, long term solutions that rehabilitate people but cost money don't.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
Locking up people works.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
That simply does not seem to be true. At the moment, our incarceration policies seem to be resulting in more, not fewer, dangerously radicalised individuals.
But all the while they remain locked up, whilst costing us lots of money, they most definitely aren't killing people no matter how radicalised they are. It's letting said dangerously radicalised types out which then allows them to kill people on a practical level.
What doesn't seem to be working very well is attempting to half-heartedly deradicalise, then letting them go. It seems quite a lot of them are like Toad of Toad Hall in the smoking room, quite content to be reformed to be released, then return to their old ways once outside.
You don't think locking up people for life on suspicion is likely to radicalise other individuals, then ?
Your second point is quite true, and is what those running the service have been saying for some time.
So decent Prime Ministers have it on Thursdays. Crap ones on Tuesdays.
Thursdays brought us the Iraq War, Brexit and, erm, Brexit. Tuesdays saved the world and, well, at least Theresa May realised having China build Hinckley Point (the 5G of its day) might be a bit dodgy.
Comments
Opinion of footy fans in 1 word: can't count.
https://twitter.com/jmpascol/status/1224375688184107008?s=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
I don't know any cricket fans who can't stand DRS or object to Umpires Call when the margins are tight.
Maybe every primary can have crap IT and apps please?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........."
It rather reminds me of the huge Press Corps, not to mention the England Manager and his entourage attending in person the draw for a major football competition, as if their presence has even the tiniest impact on the outcome. Why not simply stay at home instead and hear it live, together with the international reaction, broadcast on the world's media.
If he wants to follow the really big U.S. political story, I'd suggest OGH instead closely follows Michael Bloomberg's steady progress to The White House, looking like value at 14 on the Betfair Exchange.
DYOR.
I’m such a grammar geek.
We simply cannot go back to completely wrong decisions being given. If it cannot be decided in 30 sec, then the refs decision should stand.
http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/38/section/113/
6. There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.
On which point - https://twitter.com/herdyshepherd1/status/1224559220579803137?s=21.
Of course my group of cricket-watchers at Essex can always tell when an LBW decision is wrong, or whether the ball has been nicked, even when we are sitting in the stands quite a way away and not behind the bowlers arm.
VAR for offside is what really should have the Umpire's Call element like the ball tracker in DRS. DRS ball tracker takes a moment to appear but the second it appears the result is there with the trafic light coding - no squabbling.
In DRS the whole ball width needs to be either on the stumps or off the stumps for it not to be umpire's call - I'd use the same logic in football. The moment the lines appear if they are not at least a football's width apart then stick with the on field referees call. If they are at least a football's width apart then you have an instant decision from VAR. Job done.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/streatham-terror-attack-extremists-can-be-deradicalised-but-it-takes-resources-t7gkwdm07
and
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/london-bridge-attack-i-told-ministers-we-were-treating-terrorist-prisoners-with-jaw-dropping-naivety-did-they-listen-9ngbtgt7z.
And this is the report, as published by the government - 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
Made for a hell of a game though!
1. The Americans have consistently stated that they don’t want labels. They view labelling as a non-tariff barrier though I expect their real concern is that people would choose not to have their food precisely because of concerns about health or animal welfare.
2. Labelling does not deal with food used by processing industries etc so people could find themselves having it even if they don’t want it.
3. If production methods are illegal here we simply should not permit the import of stuff produced using such methods regardless of labelling. That would be like saying that we would allow unsafe car seats for babies to be imported and sold here provided they were labelled as such. It’s nonsensical.
I do not see the need for an FTA with the US so I certainly would not compromise on this point. But I rather fear that this government will in its desperation for a deal.
2. True but I don't care so much about that. If you're buying processed foods there's all sorts of steps in the middle, if you want control over your food then that's for fresh food. And if the people in the middle of processed foods have a verified supply chain they should be able to label it as per step 1.
3. There's already all sort of hypocrisy in the law. Taxis don't need baby seats. If there's a scientific reason for it to be illegal then we can stick with that ban, but if its just cultural or whatever and there's no science behind it I'd rather see the ban lifted anyway domestically too.
I bought some petrol this morning and after paying the cashier handed me a folded up newspaper and said "for you", I said "thank you", turned to walk off then saw that it was The Sun. I just handed the cashier the paper back and said "I'm from Merseyside" and he laughed.
I wouldn't read The Sun if you paid me to, not just for free.
Some years ago I attended a course on 'Islam in the Modern World' organised by the WEA. The speaker was a Bengali Muslim who had fought in several conflicts.... Balkans, Afghanistan, but, while retaining a strong faith had become de-radicalised as a result of both experiences and contact with more peaceful imams. The experience reinforced my belief that 'simply' locking people up isn't the whole answer; as with many other anti-social activities, concurrent re-education is essential.
https://twitter.com/LukeFrancis88/status/1224424807846109190
(*OK I'm quite enjoying it anyway)
Ann Seltzer's final poll was spot on!
https://labourlist.org/2020/02/what-clp-nominations-tell-us-about-labours-leadership-race-so-far/
The author reveals his preference on the last line, but the article seems scrupulously objective.
There was a statement that they had a full paper trail, FWTW.
Coincidentally a lot of the people going all Priti currently also seem to venerate Maajid Nawaz as their favourite reformed Islamist. Presumably they think he should have been chucked into Belmarsh when returning to the UK after being locked up in Egypt.
It is releasing people that doesn't.
Either would require much more funding than the government seems willing to spend - but the former would be both cheaper, and more realistic.
Permanently incarcerating individuals who may originally have been sentenced for only three years is simply not going to work.
There seems to be a trend in major Western nations worldwide (and some minor ones, like Ireland) for the young to vote for the nuttiest anti-establishment parties or candidates they can.
Corbyn, Sanders, SNP, Sinn Fein, and perhaps the Greens en-mass in Germany too.
At the moment, our incarceration policies seem to be resulting in more, not fewer, dangerously radicalised individuals.
Or just very unhappy:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/03/british-schoolchildren-among-least-satisfied-with-their-lives-says-oecd-report
(cries quietly in IT support)
I love the way things not just go wrong, they go wrong in predictable ways. Hey, let's put a major IT change into production at the time of its maximum usage! What could possibly for wrong???
(bites lip)
Do Americans want this sort of chaos in government?
- FF are still tainted by the unholy mess they made of the economy leading up to the financial crisis, which hit Ireland so badly;
- FG have been hit partly by the normal strains of being in government, and partly by some unforced errors of their own, with housing and healthcare both bad issues for them;
- Labour are still tainted by their coalition with FG in the post-crash government which had to impose swingeing austerity;
- The Greens were badly tainted by the coalition with FF before the financial crash but are the only party (apart from SF) who are now on the up.
This guy was radicalised before he went inside. That's why he was jailed in the first place.
We have animal welfare and environmental standards for a reason. Allowing the import of food which does not share those standards is not just a risk to our health but also risks our home grown industry. That means we lose choice, risk our health and degrade our environment. That is - to me - too high a price to pay.
Having different laws on holiday pay or pensions does not have the same prejudicial effects on consumers, producers here or our wider society. Use of slave/child labour is abhorrent for other reasons.
There is little point in claiming that we have high standards in an area and then allow imports which have the effect of undermining or eliminating those very standards. Either they matter to us or they don’t. If they matter then we stand up for them.
Murderers and attempted murderers (and terrorists) should get automatic whole life sentences to be released only if they satisfy the parole board that they are now safe.
Any recidivism should lead to an investigation as to what the parole board got wrong.
Carrot and stick. It's not either/or, we need both.
Have the Boomers Pinched Their Children’s Futures? - with Lord David Willetts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A
Its impossible to stop young men getting access to radicalising material in a free society.
(Previous result 3 independents, one FF, one Lab).
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/bitesize-ballot-a-guide-to-tipperary-hopefuls-as-parties-set-to-pile-support-on-candidates-following-death-of-marese-skehan-38923046.html
https://order-order.com/2019/12/20/spad-wages-revealed/
Is this true, or is Guido lying?
It's letting said dangerously radicalised types out which then allows them to kill people on a practical level.
What doesn't seem to be working very well is attempting to half-heartedly deradicalise, then letting them go. It seems quite a lot of them are like Toad of Toad Hall in the smoking room, quite content to be reformed to be released, then return to their old ways once outside.
And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?
As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.
You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law.
I do not think that would turn out well.
And a riot where if the rioters die, in their minds they're martyrs.
Your second point is quite true, and is what those running the service have been saying for some time.
https://twitter.com/jamiedmaxwell/status/1224650880974311424?s=20