I think Defence is seriously underfunded by the way.
The MoD might want to explain why it owns 19 golf courses before asking for any more money.
Actual defence capability comes a distant third behind industrial welfare and salving national vanity. Until that changes it doesn't matter how much cash gets hosed in the direction of the MoD.
He hasn't lapsed. He chose to leave and embrace an alternative religion, though in name only. Or so I understand.
In reality the only God Boris believes in is himself. To call him a Catholic PM is just nonsensical. He doesn't even pretend to be religious let alone Catholic.
Good. Give me a PM who believes in self-interest over a PM who believes in a magical sky fairy any day.
You think a PM who thinks only of himself a good thing? Crikey.
No. I think that a PM who does what he does because he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do it is a very, very bad thing!
A PM who thinks of himself wants to be re-elected, to be re-elected he needs to do a good job for the country and for the public to think he's the best man or woman for the job.
A PM who does what he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do is a much more scary prospect. Someone who believes something is the divine truth is irrational and can not be reasoned with.
I wasn’t comparing the two.
Boris is utterly self-interested. We will see whether that makes him a good PM for the country or not.
But on your religion point, it is worth looking at the role religious belief played in Mrs T’s politics and her political views on liberty and choice - it is rather more interesting than the- to me - silly “sky fairy” approach which misses wholly the role religion has played in the Labour movement and in politicians like Mrs T.
I'll take Thatcher and any other leader without their religion preferably thank you very much. I would far rather that religion and politics never intersect, religious dogmatism in office is one of the greatest evils throughout history. The role religion has played in politics overall is one of much greater harm than good. The sooner religious dogma is gone from the operations of the state the better.
Religion to me is much like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, but please don't wave it around in public, and definitely don't shove it down my child's mouth.
About the only thing you have ever posted that I agree with!
Martin may well be right in saying another election is the only way forward with both FG and Labour seemingly wanting to go into Opposition. Neither FF nor SF have the numbers to form a majority and if each votes against the other I don't quite see from where any new coalition appears.
The 19 Independent TDs look to hold the key to this.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
Meanwhile you appear to advocate the sort of justice system that cannot conceive of offenses more dangerous than a parking ticket, or of any offenders incapable of being cured with a cuddle...
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
Meanwhile you appear to advocate the sort of justice system that cannot conceive of offenses more dangerous than a parking ticket, or of any offenders incapable of being cured with a cuddle...
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
I would say a parole board - and if a released terrorist then reoffends afterwards there should be an investigation into how the parole board got it wrong.
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
The secret police can make the decision, and concentrate them in camps.
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
... but. The UK will remain sufficiently important and economically important that Ireland will be a good destination for trade and business. Ireland matters because the UK matters.
At the other end of the scale a complete collapse of the UK would possibly help Ireland in the long term.
I have always promoted the idea that countries should work together and even work more closely. That is why I support the EU. It is why I voted Remain.
I would far rather see the UK succeed than fail, but that decision is in the hands of a mini-Trumpian narcissist and what looks like an increasingly sycophantic Cabinet.
Nuffink to do wiv me Guv'nor....
Some matters for debate, but thank you for the amusing response.
I can't follow that Miss B, but I would rather uninspiringly observe; The UK and Ireland are part of something unsaid and not political. A mixture of friendship, animosity, horror, and who knows what. It joins us more than it divides us. Anyway, have you seen the rest of the world!!
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
Meanwhile you appear to advocate the sort of justice system that cannot conceive of offenses more dangerous than a parking ticket, or of any offenders incapable of being cured with a cuddle...
No. I advocate making the one we have actually work - you know, investigators, lawyers, courts, properly staffed prisons, etc.... I think it is called the "Rule of Law"
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
The parole board only considers whether someone should be released early. And obviously (duh), they should not have been in this case.
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent 2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number two and three, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Can you then tell us where they should be locked up, who with and which prison staff should have to look after them in an environment where any action can not be effectively punished because they already have the ultimate. Capital punishment results in martyrdom so is not an effective deterrent. I have no answers but I doubt many prison officers favor detention with no prospect of release.
The UK and Ireland are part of something unsaid and not political. A mixture of friendship, animosity, horror, and who knows what. It joins us more than it divides us.
Which is why there is a lot of baffled pity and sorrow over here
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number three and four, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
There are five names.
You haven't heard of number four. But you'd also eliminate him on the "confidence stakes".
I'm confused. And also, why haven't you heard of Gove?
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number two and three, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
Your agenda is so fucking transparent it's not even funny any more.
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number three and four, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
There are five names.
You haven't heard of number four. But you'd also eliminate him on the "confidence stakes".
I'm confused. And also, why haven't you heard of Gove?
You are right to be confused. I couldn't count to five, but have fixed that. I think
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number two and three, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
Buckland’s OK, but then, I think of Hancock as more useless than my principal (my principal was in the same cohort as Burgon at Cambridge, and it shows).
Apparently Liz Truss is the longest serving member of Cabinet.
We are f***cked.
Depends on whether you count Gove’s year as Chief Whip while the reputational damage* he had done himself and his party by his disastrous record at Education as ‘out of the cabinet.’
I would argue he was still de facto a member, in which case he is the only cabinet minister to have served continuously since 2010.
*Not the actual damage, of course, as Nicky Morgan somehow contrived to be still worse.
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number two and three, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
Your agenda is so fucking transparent it's not even funny any more.
Do you talk to people like this, in the flesh? Because if you do, you have problems. I'm sorry to say this.
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Can you then tell us where they should be locked up, who with and which prison staff should have to look after them in an environment where any action can not be effectively punished because they already have the ultimate. Capital punishment results in martyrdom so is not an effective deterrent. I have no answers but I doubt many prison officers favor detention with no prospect of release.
How in your eyes did "indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat" become "with no prospect of release" in your eyes? I said that if a parole board reasonably believes they're rehabilitated they should be released - are you saying there's no prospect of these people behing rehabilitated?
If there's no prospect of rehabilitation then yes a whole life sentence will have to do instead.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
I’m pondering why Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been retained. The best that I’ve come up with is that Boris Johnson wants to save sacking him for a special occasion when he really needs a distraction.
I'm most puzzled by Liz Truss. JRM is fairly harmless as long as they keep him off the airwaves but Ms Truss is embarrassingly bad in what is supposed to be a key area for the government.
JRM isn’t harmless.
He’s starting to cause problems for us as leader of the house in refurbishing the Palace of Westminster.
Andrea Leadsom was actually supportive and helpful.
Does he want all measurements to be in feet and inches?
I’d actually be up for that.
The bigger issue is that he doesn’t see the need for everyone to decant out of Parliament so it can be comprehensively refurbed (over 8-10 years) at a cost of £4bn - which is what Parliament voted for in 2018, and is now law - - when he thinks everyone can stay in it and do in dozens of phases over 40 years at a cost of £40bn+.
We can’t, it’s stupid and it’d risk catastrophic failure.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
You want terrorists to go free like now so they can go on stabbing rampages?
Your party scrapped the scheme..... or are you going to blame it on your minority partners?
"The IPP regime, which was brought in by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, was scrapped by the coalition government in 2012."
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
This is a core tenet of much of British thought, which overlaps (but not entirely, interesting enough) with Conservative thought. It posits that the Government should act for they and theirs individually, and against people regarded as "them". As @BluestBlue points out, it is very popular and will be adopted by the more shameless members of the commentariat. But it casts Government as a player instead of an independent referee, so I'm not easy with it. Although to be fair to PB Tories this kind of behaviour is hardly limited to the Conservative party
I think Defence is seriously underfunded by the way.
The MoD might want to explain why it owns 19 golf courses before asking for any more money.
Actual defence capability comes a distant third behind industrial welfare and salving national vanity. Until that changes it doesn't matter how much cash gets hosed in the direction of the MoD.
You’ve criticised the Tories for being the party of defence cuts several times in the past, have you not??
For me the most interesting thing about the upcoming Budget will be whether the government finally does something about student debt.
Sunak, having only entered parliament in 2015, will I hope be more willing to use the £10bn plus the ONS has given the government each year to reduce it.
I have the impression that the 2010 politicians are in denial about the whole issue.
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
This is a core tenet of much of British thought, which overlaps (but not entirely, interesting enough) with Conservative thought. It posits that the Government should act for they and theirs individually, and against people regarded as "them". As @BluestBlue points out, it is very popular and will be adopted by the more shameless members of the commentariat. But it casts Government as a player instead of an independent referee, so I'm not easy with it. Although to be fair to PB Tories this kind of behaviour is hardly limited to the Conservative party
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
Hancock is unfairly maligned, he's handled this Coronavirus very competently, he also did a stellar stint at the Treasury.
Hancock, Jendrick, Buckland, Gove and Kwasi are people I rate.
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
You are more generous than me. I would eliminate the last two on the competence stakes. I have haven't heard of number three and four, which may be in their favour in this respect. Leaving number one, who doesn't suffer from false modesty, but seems competent enough.
There are five names.
You haven't heard of number four. But you'd also eliminate him on the "confidence stakes".
I'm confused. And also, why haven't you heard of Gove?
I think his view depends on which way they divided in the EU referendum.
Under what criteria would you determine if they were a threat? Who would make that decision? On what basis can it be appealed and to whom?
You want terrorists to go free like now so they can go on stabbing rampages?
Your party scrapped the scheme..... or are you going to blame it on your minority partners?
"The IPP regime, which was brought in by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, was scrapped by the coalition government in 2012."
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
The parole board only considers whether someone should be released early. And obviously (duh), they should not have been in this case.
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent 2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
Someone, a policeman I think, was advocating post sentence custodial orders or some such. Oh with proper oversight of course...
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please crK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Could you be possibly persuaded that you may, just a touch, be over-egging the pudding here?
Easily, but it seems like a good day for it.
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
Er, Sinn Fein just won your elections...
lol Quite. And one of their new MPs shouted "up the Ra!"
Ireland has literally just voted for a government of murderous terrorists, who have killed in recent memory, and THEY presume to laugh at US?
But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
The parole board only considers whether someone should be released early. And obviously (duh), they should not have been in this case.
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent 2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
This is simple: sentence all terrorists to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum based on severity of original offence and release based upon a parole board saying they are not a threat to the public anymore.
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
He hasn't lapsed. He chose to leave and embrace an alternative religion, though in name only. Or so I understand.
In reality the only God Boris believes in is himself. To call him a Catholic PM is just nonsensical. He doesn't even pretend to be religious let alone Catholic.
Good. Give me a PM who believes in self-interest over a PM who believes in a magical sky fairy any day.
You think a PM who thinks only of himself a good thing? Crikey.
No. I think that a PM who does what he does because he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do it is a very, very bad thing!
A PM who thinks of himself wants to be re-elected, to be re-elected he needs to do a good job for the country and for the public to think he's the best man or woman for the job.
A PM who does what he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do is a much more scary prospect. Someone who believes something is the divine truth is irrational and can not be reasoned with.
I wasn’t comparing the two.
Boris is utterly self-interested. We will see whether that makes him a good PM for the country or not.
But on your religion point, it is worth looking at the role religious belief played in Mrs T’s politics and her political views on liberty and choice - it is rather more interesting than the- to me - silly “sky fairy” approach which misses wholly the role religion has played in the Labour movement and in politicians like Mrs T.
I'll take Thatcher and any other leader without their religion preferably thank you very much. I would far rather that religion and politics never intersect, religious dogmatism in office is one of the greatest evils throughout history. The role religion has played in politics overall is one of much greater harm than good. The sooner religious dogma is gone from the operations of the state the better.
Religion to me is much like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, but please don't wave it around in public, and definitely don't shove it down my child's mouth.
You're rather missing the point. Try and understand what role Methodism, for instance, played in the development of the Labour Party. Or what role religion played in the development of Mrs Thatcher. It is impossible to understand either - beyond a superficial level anyway - without understanding this.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
Comments
Actual defence capability comes a distant third behind industrial welfare and salving national vanity. Until that changes it doesn't matter how much cash gets hosed in the direction of the MoD.
Some interesting comments from Ireland:
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0213/1114963-sinn-fein-talks/
Martin may well be right in saying another election is the only way forward with both FG and Labour seemingly wanting to go into Opposition. Neither FF nor SF have the numbers to form a majority and if each votes against the other I don't quite see from where any new coalition appears.
The 19 Independent TDs look to hold the key to this.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
https://newsthump.com/2020/02/13/baldrick-named-minister-for-cunning-plans/?fbclid=IwAR06Z5U4u_Plxz6YuJ9zqPXCOSmV_eLpg2NiSCTTyHb7Sb4IXD-WLHCnYMw
(a) committing terrorist attacks
(b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks
(c) being a member of a terrorist organisation
(d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
I’m not going to say orgy and cathouse as I’m sure Johnson could manage that.
I can't follow that Miss B, but I would rather uninspiringly observe;
The UK and Ireland are part of something unsaid and not political. A mixture of friendship, animosity, horror, and who knows what. It joins us more than it divides us. Anyway, have you seen the rest of the world!!
FFS!
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent
2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
We are f***cked.
Not enough, but I intend to rectify that
You haven't heard of number four. But you'd also eliminate him on the "confidence stakes".
I'm confused. And also, why haven't you heard of Gove?
I would argue he was still de facto a member, in which case he is the only cabinet minister to have served continuously since 2010.
*Not the actual damage, of course, as Nicky Morgan somehow contrived to be still worse.
If there's no prospect of rehabilitation then yes a whole life sentence will have to do instead.
The bigger issue is that he doesn’t see the need for everyone to decant out of Parliament so it can be comprehensively refurbed (over 8-10 years) at a cost of £4bn - which is what Parliament voted for in 2018, and is now law - - when he thinks everyone can stay in it and do in dozens of phases over 40 years at a cost of £40bn+.
We can’t, it’s stupid and it’d risk catastrophic failure.
"The IPP regime, which was brought in by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, was scrapped by the coalition government in 2012."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50615928
MP Tracy Brabin's off-the-shoulder dress sells for £20k
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-51494731
Sunak, having only entered parliament in 2015, will I hope be more willing to use the £10bn plus the ONS has given the government each year to reduce it.
I have the impression that the 2010 politicians are in denial about the whole issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/inquiry-government-funding-norton-motorcycles
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
refused to fire its aides and quit in protest instead.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
NEW THREAD