politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Chancellor David Gauke becomes 3/1 favourite for next Cab
Comments
-
Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.0
-
86.6%+ of votes cast in June 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit. And Remainers still think it won’t happen. Priceless.Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:
No wonder they lost to a bus.0 -
What a berk. Being in favour of a system until it goes against you.TheScreamingEagles said:God I hate Andrew Adonis, what a moron.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/979083061651542017
With friends like these is it any wonder that remain lost.0 -
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
0 -
It is in some cases. I get there was a chance they would change direction, but sometimes it seems like the most loyal people are out there defending Oh Jeremy and also talking about the priority of stopping Brexit, which right now you cannot do both of those.Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:0 -
Some of all three of those explanations is the most likely IMHO.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
0 -
While Ed was a bit of a plonker and the labour team around him were not stellar they weren’t dangerous idiots. The likes of Cooper balls live in the real world and aren’t morons.steve_garner said:Labour not doing a very good impression of a government in waiting. Absolute shambles currently.
Not only do team twat have a very flawed take on the world, with only the odd exception they are absolutely utterly dense.0 -
That is some as in sum?glw said:
Some of all three of those explanations is the most likely IMHO.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
0 -
I presume Milne does not have mind control powers (and if he does, we had all best watch out), any more than Nick Timothy does - ultimately the leaders have to, well, lead, and cannot blame evil counsel, or have others blame that counsel for them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
0 -
If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
40+% in the polls though. people like something about the lot of them, or like what they propose so much they can ignore misgivings about the messenger.FrancisUrquhart said:
While Ed was a bit of a plonker and the labour team around him were not stellar they weren’t dangerous idiots. The likes of Cooper balls live in the real world and aren’t morons.steve_garner said:Labour not doing a very good impression of a government in waiting. Absolute shambles currently.
Not only do team twat have a very flawed take on the world, with only the odd exception they are absolutely utterly dense.0 -
The same way Warner manipulated the young* naive Cameron Bancroft.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
* by young we are talking about a 25 year old man.0 -
Having now read the Corbyn interview in more detail, he just can't stop equivocating. There is not acceptance of any personal responsibility for it. It will not change the story - it only adds fuel to the fire.0
-
Yeah, but my point is that the problem is with the original sentencing, not the parole board.kle4 said:
By that logic no-one should have JR's the decision, when as the judges have determined it was flawed and thus the JR was entirely justified. By that logic whenever a JR results in a decision going back to the determining body to redo it, they could not do so.nielh said:
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.kle4 said:
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
And it has all worked out anyway.
It may well be difficult for the parole board to take the decision. But as we have now had a judgement that the original decision was flawed, I fail to see how asking the board to do it again and properly this time, is worse than leaving in place a decision which was so flawed a court overturned it.
The parole board have to take a decision on whether he is likely to re-offend. AIUI they concluded that he wouldn't and agreed that he could be conditionally released. The decision of the JR seems to be that they didn't take in to account the other alleged but unproven allegations against him. But what difference is that really going to make to the decision? They are all historic, and the police and CPS decided not to prosecute them. It's a bizarre finding because he is innocent of these crimes until proven guilty? Nothing is solved.
Hardwicks resignation letter draws attention to this point, and the fact that the case has been politicised, and the difficulties of objectively reassessing the case.0 -
Presumably this time they will make a more realistic assessment of the risk that this serial rapist poses to women if he is released and decide now is not the time.kle4 said:
By that logic no-one should have JR's the decision, when as the judges have determined it was flawed and thus the JR was entirely justified. By that logic whenever a JR results in a decision going back to the determining body to redo it, they could not do so.nielh said:
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.kle4 said:
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
And it has all worked out anyway.
It may well be difficult for the parole board to take the decision. But as we have now had a judgement that the original decision was flawed, I fail to see how asking the board to do it again and properly this time, is worse than leaving in place a decision which was so flawed a court overturned it.0 -
It is extraordinary that some Remainers seemed to think that Corbyn's Labour would somehow work to derail Brexit. One wonders which part of his history made them so think?Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:
No wonder they lost to a bus.0 -
More to the point, sure he has spent most of his time on the backbenchers, but Jeremy Corbyn is an experienced political animal, with decades in parliament, and proud of his record of arguing and debating all manner of issues in a hard way. Why would such a person, so principled and experienced, be manipulated so easily by his advisers?FrancisUrquhart said:
The same way Warner manipulated the young* naive Cameron Bancroft.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Or is being manipulated by Milne et alFrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
* by young we are talking about a 25 year old man.0 -
God, Corbyn supporters have all the excuses ready on twitter re if that YouGov poll doesn’t turn out to be what they want. This is what happens when you choose to focus on individual polls depending on whether they are favourable to your party or not. It’s beyond parody.0
-
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.0 -
If Labour really is going to vote for the Brexit deal then surely the odds on Brexit happening on 29/03/19 should massively tighten.
But I doubt they will - because surely Corbyn will want to at least give himself a chance of defeating (and just maybe bringing down) the Govt.
Having said that, the odds have already shortened a lot - indeed one Brexit market has recently crossed over - "What will happen first - May out or Brexit" - Brexit is now clear favourite for the first time (ignoring freak trades) - at one point May out was matched at 1.03!
0 -
nielh said:
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.kle4 said:
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
And it has all worked out anyway.
They (a different board) take into account the factors the court told them to - and see if they reach a different decision (or not).
0 -
The part of his history where he promised everything to everybody?steve_garner said:
It is extraordinary that some Remainers seemed to think that Corbyn's Labour would somehow work to derail Brexit. One wonders which part of his history made them so think?Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:
No wonder they lost to a bus.0 -
-
But that is the only possible outcome of a successful judicial review, no matter who the applicant is. The court cannot make a substantive decision, it can only tell the body whose decision it is reviewing tae think again.nielh said:
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.kle4 said:
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
And it has all worked out anyway.0 -
Tbf, the hardcore remainers on twitter have never liked Corbyn’s policy on this.steve_garner said:
It is extraordinary that some Remainers seemed to think that Corbyn's Labour would somehow work to derail Brexit. One wonders which part of his history made them so think?Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:
No wonder they lost to a bus.0 -
Does anyone pay any attention to midterm polls anymore?kle4 said:
Labour up 1 - calling it now.marke09 said:
Sam Coates Times
Verified account @SamCoatesTimes
17m17 minutes ago
Latest YouGov voting intention - here at 10pm0 -
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
Yet, Salic law did not prevent Elanor of Acquitaine or Mahaut of Burgundy (grandmother of the Queen of Navarre) becoming Peers of France in their own right. I'm inclined to think that it was an invented tradition.Nigelb said:
A little unfair to say that they invented it for the occasion; rather they adopted what was an ancient tradition for their convenience in excluding the English from the succession (and more or less stuck with it):ydoethur said:
I thought it was the other way around - they invented that rule to both (1) deny Edward III as the only grandson of Philip IV the throne and (2) to exclude Philip's other ostensible grandchild, the Queen of Navarre, about whose legitimacy there were very real doubts after her mother was caught in flagrante delicto with one of her husband's servants.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, isn't that because French inheritance couldn't pass through a female line? That's why they denied the legitimacy of Edward III's claim to the French throne. [Well, the official reason, anyway].
Not sure why the Duke of Lancaster title should be likewise, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law0 -
That is not in the power of a Lord Chancellor. And nor should it be.ydoethur said:
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.0 -
(a) and (b) may be related.FrancisUrquhart said:Jezza again proving he that a) never changes his world view on anything and b) he is as thick as mince.
0 -
Oh yes, on here definitely. And on social media. And throughout the Westminster Village more generally. We’ll never stop paying attention to polls.Anazina said:
Does anyone pay any attention to midterm polls anymore?kle4 said:
Labour up 1 - calling it now.marke09 said:
Sam Coates Times
Verified account @SamCoatesTimes
17m17 minutes ago
Latest YouGov voting intention - here at 10pm0 -
It is actually. Just ask Myra Hindley.DavidL said:
That is not in the power of a Lord Chancellor. And nor should it be.ydoethur said:
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.
(Edit - I know she's dead. The point is her life sentence was confirmed by the Home Secretary prior to those powers passing to justice.)0 -
Notwithstanding the rest of your post, but a court of law apparently disagrees with you. Whatever the problems of the original sentencing, or the inadequacy as far as the public sees it, judges decided there were problems with the parole board decision itself.nielh said:
Yeah, but my point is that the problem is with the original sentencing, not the parole board.kle4 said:
By that led it.nielh said:
It hasn't quway.kle4 said:
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I .
And it has all worked out anyway.
It may well be that a newly convened board comes to the same decision. I have no doubt someone would want to JR that as well in that case. It is also true that assessing the case with the background of this case will be very difficult indeed.
None of that, however, would justify not challenging a decision so poorly done a court had to overturn it, simply because it makes redetermining it more difficult. Whatever the politics there were clearly fundamental flaws with the decision, and better an attempt to objectively reassess, however difficult that will be in this atmosphere, than to leave in place flawed decisions. As I noted, your logic essentially means there's no point JR'ing anything that would, in that circumstance, go back to the decision maker, since how could they objectively reassess in that situation?
When I say it all worked out, that's merely my view in terms of the robustness of decision making - Gauke made a reasonable call, but a JR from others proved they were right to prevent the imminent release of Worboys. The fundamental issue of his release later, for surely it will happen at some point, will no doubt still cause great controversy, but all we can hope for is that the rules are properly followed. The JR was apparently needed to ensure that.
0 -
Ha
0 -
Labour cannot own a WTO Brexit. So they have to stand back and allow May’s deal to proceed.MikeL said:If Labour really is going to vote for the Brexit deal then surely the odds on Brexit happening on 29/03/19 should massively tighten.
But I doubt they will - because surely Corbyn will want to at least give himself a chance of defeating (and just maybe bringing down) the Govt.
Having said that, the odds have already shortened a lot - indeed one Brexit market has recently crossed over - "What will happen first - May out or Brexit" - Brexit is now clear favourite for the first time (ignoring freak trades) - at one point May out was matched at 1.03!
Some of us have been saying this for months....0 -
That seems...problematic. Retrospectively increasing a sentence without some sort of appeal that the sentence was unduly harsh (if such a thing is possible). The man is clearly terrible and would deserve it, but I would be very scared if the Lord Chancellor had that kind of power - are there limits on it at least, what merits exception circumstances?ydoethur said:nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.0 -
And, indeed, I seem to remember that we've also been saying that triggering Article 50 was the key vote. Everything since has flowed from that.MarqueeMark said:
Labour cannot own a WTO Brexit. So they have to stand back and allow May’s deal to proceed.MikeL said:If Labour really is going to vote for the Brexit deal then surely the odds on Brexit happening on 29/03/19 should massively tighten.
But I doubt they will - because surely Corbyn will want to at least give himself a chance of defeating (and just maybe bringing down) the Govt.
Having said that, the odds have already shortened a lot - indeed one Brexit market has recently crossed over - "What will happen first - May out or Brexit" - Brexit is now clear favourite for the first time (ignoring freak trades) - at one point May out was matched at 1.03!
Some of us have been saying this for months....
0 -
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
But she had been sentenced to life. Warboys wasn’t. The LC can’t simply impose a sentence the court didn’t.ydoethur said:
It is actually. Just ask Myra Hindley.DavidL said:
That is not in the power of a Lord Chancellor. And nor should it be.ydoethur said:
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.
(Edit - I know she's dead. The point is her life sentence was confirmed by the Home Secretary prior to those powers passing to justice.)0 -
What's interesting is that the judgement looks to have critised the parole board for taking Worboys' story at face value on the effect of his crimes. Saying that his story was not credible given the extent of the crimes he was convincted, and alleged to have committed. Essentially it looks like Worboys' told the parole board a pack of lies and they ate it all up. Living up (down) to the image the plebs have of how getting parole works in this country.
I genuinely believe there are some crimes and criminals which cannot be redeemed. He is in that category, the two murderers from today's case are also in that category. The parole board must be much tougher with these animals and keep them off the streets, not believe their bullshit lies about how they have changed.0 -
That;s called an election campaign isn't it?ydoethur said:
The part of his history where he promised everything to everybody?steve_garner said:
It is extraordinary that some Remainers seemed to think that Corbyn's Labour would somehow work to derail Brexit. One wonders which part of his history made them so think?Mortimer said:
Remainers finally realising that Labour had a manifesto commitment to Leave the EU is absolutely hilarious.Scott_P said:
No wonder they lost to a bus.0 -
' It was the second time each had murdered, having both killed pensioners in the 1990s before they met in prison. Each served 13 years of a life sentence before they were released on licence. 'MaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
The unusual thing about the Worboys case is the publicity it has attracted.
I wonder if the media would have given a toss about him if he hadn't been a London taxidriver.0 -
Mr Eagles, in return for yesterday's links, have you seen this video:TheScreamingEagles said:Ha
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/australia-in-south-africa/we-cheat-at-cricket-oh-yes-watch-hilarious-spoof-on-aussie-ball-tampering-row/articleshow/63478736.cms0 -
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
Wasn’t Charlie Falconer Lord Chancellor at one stage?DavidL said:
That is not in the power of a Lord Chancellor. And nor should it be.ydoethur said:
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.
0 -
Almost certainly not. But given the amount of trust we place in cab drivers, it is understandable why this was a high profile case.another_richard said:
' It was the second time each had murdered, having both killed pensioners in the 1990s before they met in prison. Each served 13 years of a life sentence before they were released on licence. 'MaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
The unusual thing about the Worboys case is the publicity it has attracted.
I wonder if the media would have given a toss about him if he hadn't been a London taxidriver.0 -
He would have, a serial rapist with over 100 victims is bound to get press, unless he was "Asian". Of course.another_richard said:
' It was the second time each had murdered, having both killed pensioners in the 1990s before they met in prison. Each served 13 years of a life sentence before they were released on licence. 'MaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
The unusual thing about the Worboys case is the publicity it has attracted.
I wonder if the media would have given a toss about him if he hadn't been a London taxidriver.0 -
Re the Australain ball-tampering.
How can anyone believe that the bowlers didn't know that something was going on.0 -
Media opinion-formers would be heavy users of London taxis I imagine - it would be a crime to which they would feel vulnerable.MaxPB said:
He would have, a serial rapist with over 100 victims is bound to get press, unless he was "Asian". Of course.another_richard said:
' It was the second time each had murdered, having both killed pensioners in the 1990s before they met in prison. Each served 13 years of a life sentence before they were released on licence. 'MaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
The unusual thing about the Worboys case is the publicity it has attracted.
I wonder if the media would have given a toss about him if he hadn't been a London taxidriver.0 -
There were either lies told when they first confessed (there was at least one, re the material used) or they have lied now to save others. The 'Leadership group' stuff from Smith was curious phrasing from the start, since it implicated others, but only one other has been stated to have known. So either he tried to pin it on more than him and Warner (Bancroft surely is not a part of the leadership group) or he later lied about it.another_richard said:Re the Australain ball-tampering.
How can anyone believe that the bowlers didn't know that something was going on.0 -
Indeed, my post was slightly provocative - people do pay attention but as you yourself implied the other day, they are rather pointless, given that 20pt swings are possible three weeks out from a general election. It is akin to consulting the weather forecast for tomorrow to predict the conditions on a specific day in June.The_Apocalypse said:
Oh yes, on here definitely. And on social media. And throughout the Westminster Village more generally. We’ll never stop paying attention to polls.Anazina said:
Does anyone pay any attention to midterm polls anymore?kle4 said:
Labour up 1 - calling it now.marke09 said:
Sam Coates Times
Verified account @SamCoatesTimes
17m17 minutes ago
Latest YouGov voting intention - here at 10pm0 -
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
0 -
Oh they are definitely pointless, but we eat it up anyway. We're supporting british industry by keeping the polling companies in business.Anazina said:
Indeed, my post was slightly provocative - people do pay attention but as you yourself implied the other day, they are rather pointless, given that 20pt swings are possible three weeks out from a general election. It is akin to consulting the weather forecast for tomorrow to predict the conditions on a specific day in June.The_Apocalypse said:
Oh yes, on here definitely. And on social media. And throughout the Westminster Village more generally. We’ll never stop paying attention to polls.Anazina said:
Does anyone pay any attention to midterm polls anymore?kle4 said:
Labour up 1 - calling it now.marke09 said:
Sam Coates Times
Verified account @SamCoatesTimes
17m17 minutes ago
Latest YouGov voting intention - here at 10pm0 -
It is all horseshit...they are trying to spin it that Warner leaned on the poor naive player to do something dodgy, Smith didn't know, Lehmann didn't know, the bowlers didn't know.another_richard said:Re the Australain ball-tampering.
How can anyone believe that the bowlers didn't know that something was going on.
Having played to a semi-professional level as a youngster, I had the "joy" of being ball shiner to a number of bowlers who played test cricket. I remember one West Indian who was so laid back he was horizontal, unless you somehow damaged the ball / didn't kept the shine up, then you got absolute grief.
The likelihood that the bowlers totally missed that the ball was suddenly getting unnaturally rough on one side is absolutely zero.0 -
Only you could read some pro-London media luvvie conspiracy into the coverage of this story. Come down here, try some of our restaurants, have a cocktail, let your hair down, let go man!another_richard said:
Media opinion-formers would be heavy users of London taxis I imagine - it would be a crime to which they would feel vulnerable.MaxPB said:
He would have, a serial rapist with over 100 victims is bound to get press, unless he was "Asian". Of course.another_richard said:
' It was the second time each had murdered, having both killed pensioners in the 1990s before they met in prison. Each served 13 years of a life sentence before they were released on licence. 'MaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
The unusual thing about the Worboys case is the publicity it has attracted.
I wonder if the media would have given a toss about him if he hadn't been a London taxidriver.0 -
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoy as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
The risk of killing innocent people is a big practical objection; so are the endless appeals; to my mind, the biggest is that the process of choosing which murderers are to be executed is very arbitrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
0 -
True, though I'd have the two murderers in that case lined up and shot. They serve absolutely no purpose other than act as a drain on resources.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
Corbynistan....
We Witnessed The Riots & Chaos During Venezuela's Elections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxpWeUrO9k80 -
Blast, video is proving awkward. Try here:ydoethur said:
Mr Eagles, in return for yesterday's links, have you seen this video:TheScreamingEagles said:Ha
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/australia-in-south-africa/we-cheat-at-cricket-oh-yes-watch-hilarious-spoof-on-aussie-ball-tampering-row/articleshow/63478736.cms
https://youtu.be/S1kAp1WBwV80 -
An indeterminate sentence is a life sentence by another name, with the crucial difference that it didn't provide the same level of certainty or the same options of restraint.DavidL said:
But she had been sentenced to life. Warboys wasn’t. The LC can’t simply impose a sentence the court didn’t.ydoethur said:
It is actually. Just ask Myra Hindley.DavidL said:
That is not in the power of a Lord Chancellor. And nor should it be.ydoethur said:
The problem was not the sentencing. The problem was that Labour introduced 'indeterminate sentences' which is what he was sentenced to. As a result it was considered not worth pursuing him further over other cases.nielh said:
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.MaxPB said:Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
When Clarke - rightly - abolished these sentences as wide open to gross abuse, Warboys was back on his original tariff of eight years, which has expired. Feeling, with some justice, this doesn't meet the severity of his crimes, his victims have complained.
In this particular case I have to say it could have been resolved by a Lord Chancellor - again, presumably Clarke - ruling that Warboys given the very exceptional circumstances deserved a full life tariff.
(Edit - I know she's dead. The point is her life sentence was confirmed by the Home Secretary prior to those powers passing to justice.)
The Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary, for all those functions are mostly delegated tot the Lord Chief Justice. As all sentences derive ultimately from the Crown, they do have the power to vary them. The fact this is not normally used is a different matter.
See here for the problems these IPPs caused:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/14/liz-truss-get-grip-backlog-prisoners-held-beyond-interdeminate-sentence-ipp
And on that, good night.0 -
In before the 8-point Tory lead is announced.0
-
YouGov trolling us all. After all that and only MOE movements.0
-
So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.0
-
Go call that election while you're high in the polls, Theresa!0
-
Not a huge surprise. Corbyn is teflon.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
0 -
Now that is badTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
It’s firmed up the Con lead though.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
What an absolute boy.0 -
You sound like a Cybernat getting all excited about a 1% movement.TGOHF said:
It’s firmed up the Con lead though.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
What an absolute boy.0 -
Indeed this is eloquently expressed as to why the death penalty will never be reinstated and that there are so few jurisdictions worldwide that have reinstated it. Those of us who are morally opposed are irrelevant - the practical and fairness concerns of those who have no such moral objections are behind its irreversible global decline.Sean_F said:
The risk of killing innocent people is a big practical objection; so are the endless appeals; to my mind, the biggest is that the process of choosing which murderers are to be executed is very arbitrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
0 -
Might need another review by Chakrabarti.oxfordsimon said:
Now that is badTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
So the lead is between 1 - 7% with MOETheScreamingEagles said:
You sound like a Cybernat getting all excited about a 1% movement.TGOHF said:
It’s firmed up the Con lead though.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
What an absolute boy.0 -
No problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party....they did an investigation and everything.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/979100827095916551
0 -
The Teflon is being chipped away. Straight after last year's election, Yougov had Labour 8% ahead.MaxPB said:
Not a huge surprise. Corbyn is teflon.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
0 -
That's not how MOE works.Big_G_NorthWales said:
So the lead is between 1 - 7% with MOETheScreamingEagles said:
You sound like a Cybernat getting all excited about a 1% movement.TGOHF said:
It’s firmed up the Con lead though.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
What an absolute boy.
It means 1 in 20 polls will be an outlier.0 -
Hubris.Sean_F said:
The Teflon is being chipped away. Straight after last year's election, Yougov had Labour 8% ahead.MaxPB said:
Not a huge surprise. Corbyn is teflon.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
0 -
Even the best non-stick pans eventually become tarnished and stickySean_F said:
The Teflon is being chipped away. Straight after last year's election, Yougov had Labour 8% ahead.MaxPB said:
Not a huge surprise. Corbyn is teflon.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
0 -
Shame on those 39%.
Although I suspect they will be down to 35% by the time of the May locals.0 -
Alway knew YouGov was the true Gold Standard
0 -
For context, this time last year YouGov had the Tories with an 18% lead.0
-
The Easter break has arrived just in time for Labour.0
-
What would bring back the death penalty (if only temporarily) is major war and its aftermath. No one is going to object to the execution of traitors, or people who run concentration camps.Anazina said:
Indeed this is eloquently expressed as to why the death penalty will never be reinstated and that there are so few jurisdictions worldwide that have reinstated it. Those of us who are morally opposed are irrelevant - the practical and fairness concerns of those who have no such moral objections are behind its irreversible global decline.Sean_F said:
The risk of killing innocent people is a big practical objection; so are the endless appeals; to my mind, the biggest is that the process of choosing which murderers are to be executed is very arbitrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
That's like the company ombudsman being a sexual harasser. When even the umpires on these matters want to look the other way to obvious anti-Semitism you know the party is in a bad state.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm starting to think the old conscientious Labour Party will never return.0 -
Didn't you also "suspect" that Corbyn hadn't a hope in hell of outdoing Ed Miliband?MarqueeMark said:Shame on those 39%.
Although I suspect they will be down to 35% by the time of the May locals.
0 -
Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.0 -
Not sure I understand thatTheScreamingEagles said:
That's not how MOE works.Big_G_NorthWales said:
So the lead is between 1 - 7% with MOETheScreamingEagles said:
You sound like a Cybernat getting all excited about a 1% movement.TGOHF said:
It’s firmed up the Con lead though.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
What an absolute boy.
It means 1 in 20 polls will be an outlier.0 -
Not at all; the tradition was quite genuine.Sean_F said:
Yet, Salic law did not prevent Elanor of Acquitaine or Mahaut of Burgundy (grandmother of the Queen of Navarre) becoming Peers of France in their own right. I'm inclined to think that it was an invented tradition.Nigelb said:
A little unfair to say that they invented it for the occasion; rather they adopted what was an ancient tradition for their convenience in excluding the English from the succession (and more or less stuck with it):ydoethur said:
I thought it was the other way around - they invented that rule to both (1) deny Edward III as the only grandson of Philip IV the throne and (2) to exclude Philip's other ostensible grandchild, the Queen of Navarre, about whose legitimacy there were very real doubts after her mother was caught in flagrante delicto with one of her husband's servants.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, isn't that because French inheritance couldn't pass through a female line? That's why they denied the legitimacy of Edward III's claim to the French throne. [Well, the official reason, anyway].
Not sure why the Duke of Lancaster title should be likewise, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law
But like EU law, enforced in France when it's convenient.
0 -
I think they've made the deadly Corbyn killer silver bullet out of blancmange.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
Again.0 -
Yep.steve_garner said:The Easter break has arrived just in time for Labour.
0 -
Yes, you are quite possibly right on that point.Sean_F said:
What would bring back the death penalty (if only temporarily) is major war and its aftermath. No one is going to object to the execution of traitors, or people who run concentration camps.Anazina said:
Indeed this is eloquently expressed as to why the death penalty will never be reinstated and that there are so few jurisdictions worldwide that have reinstated it. Those of us who are morally opposed are irrelevant - the practical and fairness concerns of those who have no such moral objections are behind its irreversible global decline.Sean_F said:
The risk of killing innocent people is a big practical objection; so are the endless appeals; to my mind, the biggest is that the process of choosing which murderers are to be executed is very arbitrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.0 -
I think killing in battle, terrorism or hostage rescue is readily accepted as a necessity.Sean_F said:
What would bring back the death penalty (if only temporarily) is major war and its aftermath. No one is going to object to the execution of traitors, or people who run concentration camps.Anazina said:
Indeed this is eloquently expressed as to why the death penalty will never be reinstated and that there are so few jurisdictions worldwide that have reinstated it. Those of us who are morally opposed are irrelevant - the practical and fairness concerns of those who have no such moral objections are behind its irreversible global decline.Sean_F said:
The risk of killing innocent people is a big practical objection; so are the endless appeals; to my mind, the biggest is that the process of choosing which murderers are to be executed is very arbitrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Juries would be permanently deadlocked, and mistrials ahoys as no one would want to see an innocent person put to death.Sean_F said:
I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I think that the practical objections to its use in peacetime are very compelling.kle4 said:
I have a feeling the polling on Brexiters being more likely to support the death penalty is about to be frantically linked to by someoneSean_F said:
Without doubt, there are people who deserve to be executed. But, I don't think we'd ever reach a consensus about who does deserve to be executed. The death penalty is always going to be tokenistic and applied inconsistently.HHemmelig said:
That case is a great advert for the death penaltyMaxPB said:If we're going to take a look at poor parole decisions then this one stands out as a particularly poor one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-convicted-of-murdering-woman-after-rape-and-torture-1.3442450?mode=amp
Both on parole, both convicted of murder. I think the parole board have a lot to answer for here. At least Worboys was not able to harm anyone while out of prison, these two raped, tortured and killed an innocent woman. Anyone who made the decision to let these two animals out should be kicked off the parole board.
I think making the legal case for execution as a natural part of the justice system, well post the event, is far harder.0 -
Nope - that ship has sailedElliot said:
That's like the company ombudsman being a sexual harasser. When even the umpires on these matters want to look the other way to obvious anti-Semitism you know the party is in a bad state.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm starting to think the old conscientious Labour Party will never return.
Its just a question of do they get to inflict major damage before they disintegrate0 -
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
The poll boost is entirely because of Salisbury, I reckon - that kind of thing virtually always gives the government a lift, even John Major and Gordon Brown got temporary poll boosts when that sort of thing happened. It gives any PM a chance to look statesman/stateswoman-like, and "above party politics".0 -
He’s not the messiah. He’s a very anti-Semitic boy.MarqueeMark said:Shame on those 39%.
Although I suspect they will be down to 35% by the time of the May locals.0 -
I will be happy to wager that Corbyn and his anti-Semitic party are now on the slide. When Lefties are gloating that nothing can harm them - not even rank vileness that other parties have booted out - they are flying way too close to the sun....Danny565 said:
Didn't you also "suspect" that Corbyn hadn't a hope in hell of outdoing Ed Miliband?MarqueeMark said:Shame on those 39%.
Although I suspect they will be down to 35% by the time of the May locals.0
