politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pandemic: Millions of people in the north affected by new
Options
Comments
-
O/T
Looks like it might reach 37 degrees at Heathrow later on. Currently 36.0 -
Um, he probably would - I seem to remember reading that Guilty pleas usually resulted in death sentences being commuted and it's a hell of an incentive to plea guilty - a life sentence rather than automatic death.Pulpstar said:
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.eek said:
He pleaded guilty ...Philip_Thompson said:eek said:
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).Philip_Thompson said:
Only 300 people a year go to prison for murder, versus 15% of our prison population being there for drugs offences (which I'd like to eliminate completely by Canadian style legalisation).DavidL said:
There are so many problems with that.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
Firstly we would need to build a hell of a lot more prisons. We already imprison significantly more than the European average but our prison population would rise and rise.
Secondly, handling and dealing with prisoners who have no possibility of parole is both dangerous and difficult. They have no incentive to co-operate, not to be violent to staff and other prisoners, they can act with impunity.
Thirdly, a civilised prison system is built on redemption as well as punishment. That simply won't work with full life prisoners.
Fourthly, even more than has already happened with historic sex offenders, it means our prisons need to be set up as hospitals to deal with old age inmates who are to die there. This would be both inefficient and difficult to staff.
No normal person would fail to be angry at these people and want them properly punished for what they have done but full life prison sentences are not the answer for them or indeed more than a few very dangerous others.
Why would we need a hell of a lot more prisons? Surely our prison population are largely there for non-murder offences.
I hear your concerns about full life sentences but that's not a reason not to have them. Yes we should rehabilitate petty thieves etc - but murderers? Sorry, no.Philip_Thompson said:The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
0 -
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.0 -
You would have been great to have around during the Second World War wouldn't you:houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
"Its all a hoax! There are no Nazis its all a government conspiracy: no one has ever dropped a bomb on me. Get the lights on, come out of those air-raid shelters!"
The number of people who have gone to pieces over simple health advice, already widely followed in other parts of the world, is the most depressing part of this.
You don't need "Blitz spirit" you just need common sense and the sad truth is that even that is seemingly quite absent from the population based on these shrill and non-sensical protests. If only your hysteria only negatively affected you.1 -
There should be a judge-led inquiry. What if it turns out Santa rewards bad behaviour?Foxy said:
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
And having someone on it is very far from the worst scenario...Foxy said:
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
Agree with this. In a 2 party system, the demographic changes must balance out in the long term. If one party becomes too dominant then they can struggle to keep all parts of their coalition happy. Alternatively, the party out of power will change tack once they get tired of losing.TimT said:
The demographic argument making a resurgence. According to the 2008 version, the Tea Party (and then Trump) should never have happened, because with Obama's election, the demographics had already shifted to ensure that the GOP would never again be in power. According to the 2012 version, the GOP faced extinction.BluestBlue said:
Oh, I've said before that the mainstream Democrats are indistinguishable from moderate Republicans, and Biden is the epitome of that class. But the way US demographics are shifting, losing all branches of government now may leave the Republicans out of power for a very long time, possibly until the Democratic 'progressives' manage to gain the ascendancy. The Republicans are currently risking everything by following an intellectually-challenged fantasist on a road to nowhere...kinabalu said:
The Radical "Do Nothing" Democrats are hardly anything to frighten the horses.BluestBlue said:
To whom should politicians listen during a pandemic if not to epidemiologists? You're obviously a fan of the US Republicans - and I can also find something to admire in their general ruthlessness - but they're following the exact strategy you recommend and it's leading them to electoral oblivion. Is the doctrinal purity of refusing to take measures to control the pandemic worth losing America to the left? Because that's what those idiots are currently on course to achieve.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
How can they be if they will be doing nothing?
As demographics shift, so do the issues, the parties, and the centre. Everything rebalances, even if it make take a cycle or two. But not 'a very long time'.
In the UK, for example, Rother Valley went Tory over Brexit and Corbyn but it had already started trending away from Labour during the Blair years. Likewise Canterbury was a big shock in 2017 but had been slowly drifting away from the Tories for some elections previously. In many cases the Brexit debate sped up existing trends.0 -
I oppose the death penalty on principle. I know of no way of introducing the death penalty that doesn't risk killing the innocent. It is not worth it, not when life in prison is a viable (even if expensive) alternative.eek said:
He pleaded guilty ...Philip_Thompson said:eek said:
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).Philip_Thompson said:
Only 300 people a year go to prison for murder, versus 15% of our prison population being there for drugs offences (which I'd like to eliminate completely by Canadian style legalisation).DavidL said:
There are so many problems with that.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
Firstly we would need to build a hell of a lot more prisons. We already imprison significantly more than the European average but our prison population would rise and rise.
Secondly, handling and dealing with prisoners who have no possibility of parole is both dangerous and difficult. They have no incentive to co-operate, not to be violent to staff and other prisoners, they can act with impunity.
Thirdly, a civilised prison system is built on redemption as well as punishment. That simply won't work with full life prisoners.
Fourthly, even more than has already happened with historic sex offenders, it means our prisons need to be set up as hospitals to deal with old age inmates who are to die there. This would be both inefficient and difficult to staff.
No normal person would fail to be angry at these people and want them properly punished for what they have done but full life prison sentences are not the answer for them or indeed more than a few very dangerous others.
Why would we need a hell of a lot more prisons? Surely our prison population are largely there for non-murder offences.
I hear your concerns about full life sentences but that's not a reason not to have them. Yes we should rehabilitate petty thieves etc - but murderers? Sorry, no.Philip_Thompson said:The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
0 -
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.0 -
Isn't that the business model of Victoria's Secret?williamglenn said:
There should be a judge-led inquiry. What if it turns out Santa rewards bad behaviour?Foxy said:
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
I can confirm from personal experience, you still get presents! On the other hand, hard to know if you would have got more or better ones.....Foxy said:
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
1 -
Santa Claus was from what is now Turkey...TOPPING said:
Emphasising the patriarchy.Philip_Thompson said:
What's wrong with Father Christmas?kinabalu said:
In fact I'm not calling him Santa anymore from now until he's phased out. It's Claus.kinabalu said:
Actually hadn't thought of that. That makes Santa rather like private schools and thus to be phased out.Malmesbury said:
He leaves more expensive presents for children of richer parents.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.
Totally regressive.
PB at its best - a thoughtful contribution changing my mind on an important issue.
Surely the epitome of pale, male, and stale.0 -
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit.NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - places in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
The agenda is to control the pandemic and to avoid deaths. We already have roughly 50,000 dead, we would have hundreds of thousands more dead in this country if we let the virus sweep through the entire nation.0 -
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
0 -
True. It’s more like 60,000.contrarian said:
YOu must be the last person in Britain to believe that 50,000 number. Even the government doesn;t, its suspended its deaths reporting because it is completelty unreliablePhilip_Thompson said:
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit.NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - places in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
The agenda is to control the pandemic and to avoid deaths. We already have roughly 50,000 dead, we would have hundreds of thousands more dead in this country if we let the virus sweep through the entire nation.
And also the last person to believe the hundreds of thousands of deaths prediction when that has happened precisely nowhere, lockdown or no lockdown.
0 -
contrarian said:
YOu must be the last person in Britain to believe that 50,000 number. Even the government doesn;t, its suspended its deaths reporting because it is completelty unreliablePhilip_Thompson said:
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit.NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - places in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
The agenda is to control the pandemic and to avoid deaths. We already have roughly 50,000 dead, we would have hundreds of thousands more dead in this country if we let the virus sweep through the entire nation.
And also the last person to believe the hundreds of thousands of deaths prediction when that has happened precisely nowhere, lockdown or no lockdown.
There;s zero evidence lockdown prevented any deaths, as the Oxford group stated, and there's plenty of evidence its creating hundreds of thousands of deaths via non covid causes.1 -
No reporting has been suspended.contrarian said:
YOu must be the last person in Britain to believe that 50,000 number. Even the government doesn;t, its suspended its deaths reporting because it is completelty unreliablePhilip_Thompson said:
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit.NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - places in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
The agenda is to control the pandemic and to avoid deaths. We already have roughly 50,000 dead, we would have hundreds of thousands more dead in this country if we let the virus sweep through the entire nation.
And also the last person to believe the hundreds of thousands of deaths prediction when that has happened precisely nowhere, lockdown or no lockdown.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
The government official policy is to use the ONS numbers.
0 -
Yes - you have got the better of me on this one. The date is 31st July 2020.Philip_Thompson said:Not often on this site a debate can start and quickly reach a conclusion changing people's minds.
It seems though that the proposition "Santa is right wing" is one such debate though? Are we agreed?1 -
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.noneoftheabove said:
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
0 -
-
No. Guilty pleas in a murder case led to an automatic death sentence.eek said:
Um, he probably would - I seem to remember reading that Guilty pleas usually resulted in death sentences being commuted and it's a hell of an incentive to plea guilty - a life sentence rather than automatic death.Pulpstar said:
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.eek said:
He pleaded guilty ...Philip_Thompson said:eek said:
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).Philip_Thompson said:
Only 300 people a year go to prison for murder, versus 15% of our prison population being there for drugs offences (which I'd like to eliminate completely by Canadian style legalisation).DavidL said:
There are so many problems with that.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
Firstly we would need to build a hell of a lot more prisons. We already imprison significantly more than the European average but our prison population would rise and rise.
Secondly, handling and dealing with prisoners who have no possibility of parole is both dangerous and difficult. They have no incentive to co-operate, not to be violent to staff and other prisoners, they can act with impunity.
Thirdly, a civilised prison system is built on redemption as well as punishment. That simply won't work with full life prisoners.
Fourthly, even more than has already happened with historic sex offenders, it means our prisons need to be set up as hospitals to deal with old age inmates who are to die there. This would be both inefficient and difficult to staff.
No normal person would fail to be angry at these people and want them properly punished for what they have done but full life prison sentences are not the answer for them or indeed more than a few very dangerous others.
Why would we need a hell of a lot more prisons? Surely our prison population are largely there for non-murder offences.
I hear your concerns about full life sentences but that's not a reason not to have them. Yes we should rehabilitate petty thieves etc - but murderers? Sorry, no.Philip_Thompson said:The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
However, the Home Secretary had the power to commute death sentences if requested (a bit like the Court of Appeal will almost certainly be asked to consider these sentences to see if they should be increased).
It didn't always happen. Ruth Ellis made a full confession, admitted the crime and pleaded guilty, but a petition for a reprieve was rejected by the then Home Secretary, Gwilym Lloyd George (of whom Churchill had said, in appointing him in 1954, 'He'll hang them all right if he has to').0 -
Or to take a more concrete example those men convicted of abusing children in Rotherham and elsewhere. Those monsters have destroyed more lives and done more harm than most murderers would ever aspire to.noneoftheabove said:
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
0 -
The counter-argument (apols if it was covered earlier) is that this would encourage people who have raped and abused to kill their victims for a better chance of evading justice.kinabalu said:
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.noneoftheabove said:
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
If murder ultimately carries a far higher sentence, then the prospect of long imprisonment discourages this.0 -
Is the best argument against the death penalty that a life sentence in a miserable environment like HM Prisons is a far more severe punishment?0
-
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.0
-
"I reject their evidence that they just happened to see it from the road as they were passing. I have been to the site and its location was not visible."isam said:
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?0 -
Indeed yes. With no living humans it will instantly die out.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
Genius.0 -
The situation with the NHS is simply madness. People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases where most have not seen one for weeks and are doing little else.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
Where I live in Southampton we have 1.19 cases per 100,000 people yet if I want to go to the cinema I have to wear a mask!!!
https://data.southampton.gov.uk/images/covid-19-southampton-infographic-24-07-2020_tcm71-429335.pdf1 -
-
No that's a brand new point. I don't like it but it's not an easy one to counter without me appearing to have an unusually sharp insight into the minds of such twisted individuals.Luckyguy1983 said:
The counter-argument (apols if it was covered earlier) is that this would encourage people who have raped and abused to kill their victims for a better chance of evading justice.kinabalu said:
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.noneoftheabove said:
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
If murder ultimately carries a far higher sentence, then the prospect of long imprisonment discourages this.0 -
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
1 -
NHS primary care in the back of beyond ... England/Wales border ... also seems to be twiddling its thumbs. I phoned for a routine blood test. 'Yes certainly, would you like to come on Monday?'NerysHughes said:
The situation with the NHS is simply madness. People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases where most have not seen one for weeks and are doing little else.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
Where I live in Southampton we have 1.19 cases per 100,000 people yet if I want to go to the cinema I have to wear a mask!!!
https://data.southampton.gov.uk/images/covid-19-southampton-infographic-24-07-2020_tcm71-429335.pdf0 -
Evidence?NerysHughes said:People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases...
0 -
And that dreadful rapist recently. Killed no-one but oh boy.DavidL said:
Or to take a more concrete example those men convicted of abusing children in Rotherham and elsewhere. Those monsters have destroyed more lives and done more harm than most murderers would ever aspire to.noneoftheabove said:
Someone raping 200 people or abusing hundreds of children should be locked up longer than someone who has a one off event that leads to murder imo.kinabalu said:
It is but if the served time for murder doubles or triples but that for attempted murder stays the same, or for horrendous GBH or violent rape, these sort of very grave offences, then this imo throws the scales of justice out. I can think of non murder cases in the past that I considered to be as heinous as murder if not more so.Pulpstar said:
I don't think you need to do this, when someone loses their life - the effect is more final than any other type of crime.kinabalu said:it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
0 -
The astonishing ignorance of that post, of who Corona affects and how, really does beggar belief.ydoethur said:
Indeed yes. With no living humans it will instantly die out.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
Genius.0 -
A case which - pun intended - sounded the death knell for the death sentence.ydoethur said:
No. Guilty pleas in a murder case led to an automatic death sentence.eek said:
Um, he probably would - I seem to remember reading that Guilty pleas usually resulted in death sentences being commuted and it's a hell of an incentive to plea guilty - a life sentence rather than automatic death.Pulpstar said:
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.eek said:
He pleaded guilty ...Philip_Thompson said:eek said:
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).Philip_Thompson said:
Only 300 people a year go to prison for murder, versus 15% of our prison population being there for drugs offences (which I'd like to eliminate completely by Canadian style legalisation).DavidL said:
There are so many problems with that.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
Firstly we would need to build a hell of a lot more prisons. We already imprison significantly more than the European average but our prison population would rise and rise.
Secondly, handling and dealing with prisoners who have no possibility of parole is both dangerous and difficult. They have no incentive to co-operate, not to be violent to staff and other prisoners, they can act with impunity.
Thirdly, a civilised prison system is built on redemption as well as punishment. That simply won't work with full life prisoners.
Fourthly, even more than has already happened with historic sex offenders, it means our prisons need to be set up as hospitals to deal with old age inmates who are to die there. This would be both inefficient and difficult to staff.
No normal person would fail to be angry at these people and want them properly punished for what they have done but full life prison sentences are not the answer for them or indeed more than a few very dangerous others.
Why would we need a hell of a lot more prisons? Surely our prison population are largely there for non-murder offences.
I hear your concerns about full life sentences but that's not a reason not to have them. Yes we should rehabilitate petty thieves etc - but murderers? Sorry, no.Philip_Thompson said:The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
However, the Home Secretary had the power to commute death sentences if requested (a bit like the Court of Appeal will almost certainly be asked to consider these sentences to see if they should be increased).
It didn't always happen. Ruth Ellis made a full confession, admitted the crime and pleaded guilty, but a petition for a reprieve was rejected by the then Home Secretary, Gwilym Lloyd George (of whom Churchill had said, in appointing him in 1954, 'He'll hang them all right if he has to').
And just as it was scrapped, with exquisite timing along came Ian and Myra.0 -
as if always having the same size footprints as your father wasn’t evidence enough.Fysics_Teacher said:
I started to have doubts when I realised that Santa shopped in the County Stores, my grandmother’s favourite Taunton food seller.Philip_Thompson said:
[Citation Needed]kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.0 -
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.0 -
How would the rest of us ever know?Foxy said:
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...noneoftheabove said:
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.MaxPB said:
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.0 -
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.1 -
I only have anecdotal evidence but its pretty strong as both my wife and daughter are nurses and through them I know lots of other medical people. The main evidence comes from nurses who work in surgeries, people are still not attending as they think they are closed and those that do attend apologise for coming in as they don't want to cause any bother to the overworked doctors and nurses of the NHS. The people who have has the most easy time during Covid are GPs. They have had whole days with no patients to see and just a couple of phonecalls to make. Even now they are not breaking a sweat.williamglenn said:
Evidence?NerysHughes said:People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases...
0 -
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.Malmesbury said:
"I reject their evidence that they just happened to see it from the road as they were passing. I have been to the site and its location was not visible."isam said:
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?0 -
In this case, the judge said that Coles would have been sentenced to 24 years, but for his age at the time (20% reduction) and his guilty plea (a further 20%).Philip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
He also said the other two would have got 20 years had they been over 18 at the time.
He did also sentence them for theft, to run concurrently.
Looking at his remarks, I'm not sure these sentences will be reviewed upwards although I've no doubt they will be referred to the Court of Appeal.0 -
Might have been after the verdict?RobD said:
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.Malmesbury said:
"I reject their evidence that they just happened to see it from the road as they were passing. I have been to the site and its location was not visible."isam said:
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?0 -
I support Roger Waters' freedom of speech, but you don't *automatically* get a letter into The Times, do you? I should imagine they receive somewhat more letters than they publish.isam said:0 -
https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?0 -
Wouldn't that information be relevant for the verdict? Very strange, although I haven't read into it at all, just basing it on the comments here.ydoethur said:
Might have been after the verdict?RobD said:
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.Malmesbury said:
"I reject their evidence that they just happened to see it from the road as they were passing. I have been to the site and its location was not visible."isam said:
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?0 -
The judge has made it very clear he thinks it was murder in the sentencing remarks. "This is as much as I can give without it being quashed............"0
-
It doesn't according to the data regularly shared here in that colour coded table. Anyone have access to it?rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?0 -
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
0 -
That's a slightly different point.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
But immediately before saying "life should mean life" you also said this -
"That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself."
So the clear impression was given that you were opining (i) that murder should continue to carry a life sentence and (ii) that life should mean life.
But OK, you have now clarified, which is good. Although we won't get this time back.0 -
I'm incredibly confused as to what nefarious agenda you think is at work. What do you think is being sought and why have nearly all governments in the world shown remarkable cooperation in pushing that agenda?houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.0 -
Will you be getting the vaccine (If you're eligible) when it's out ?contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.0 -
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.0 -
Its been that way for a few months now, hospitals are ghost towns. People will be dying of other illnesses because they are not being seen. And frankly many medical staff are happy for this to continue, they have a much easier job now.rural_voter said:
NHS primary care in the back of beyond ... England/Wales border ... also seems to be twiddling its thumbs. I phoned for a routine blood test. 'Yes certainly, would you like to come on Monday?'NerysHughes said:
The situation with the NHS is simply madness. People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases where most have not seen one for weeks and are doing little else.houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.
Where I live in Southampton we have 1.19 cases per 100,000 people yet if I want to go to the cinema I have to wear a mask!!!
https://data.southampton.gov.uk/images/covid-19-southampton-infographic-24-07-2020_tcm71-429335.pdf
It was a nurse's birthday at my wifes hospital the other day and they had a 3 hour party from 1pm - 4pm. Patient care was not affected because they don't have any patients!!1 -
Life has never meant 'life' except in exceptional circumstances since we introduced the mandatory life sentence when they abolished the death penalty. At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 years unless there are other circumstances such as sexual assault, use of a fire arm or multiple killings.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
If these men had been found guilty of murder there is no reason to expect they would have got sentences much different to what they have now received.
2 -
Using the ONS figures like that is like using poll subsamples.rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?0 -
How does that work? You can get a life sentence for man slaughter iirc.Pulpstar said:The judge has made it very clear he thinks it was murder in the sentencing remarks. "This is as much as I can give without it being quashed............"
0 -
Protecting our free speech AND at the same time fighting tooth & nail against lockdown.rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?
This man - Toby Young - is something else.0 -
People dont like to think of murderers serving their time and reentering society. But presumably most of them do just that.Richard_Tyndall said:
Life has never meant 'life' except in exceptional circumstances since we introduced the mandatory life sentence when they abolished the death penalty. At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 years unless there are other circumstances such as sexual assault, use of a fire arm or multiple killings.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
If these men had been found guilty of murder there is no reason to expect they would have got sentences much different to what they have now received.0 -
London - absolute numbers -Philip_Thompson said:
It doesn't according to the data regularly shared here in that colour coded table. Anyone have access to it?rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?
0 -
None of the vaccines provide lasting immunity? I assume this has been published.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.0 -
I hear he refuses to pay minimum wage or allow time off for Christmas either.Philip_Thompson said:
[Citation Needed]kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.
Bastard!1 -
Philip_Thompson said:
It doesn't according to the data regularly shared here in that colour coded table. Anyone have access to it?rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?
London - scaled to 100K population -
0 -
What you get when you elect a part-timer like Johnson to pick a Cabinet and run a government:
https://twitter.com/Danjamesmartin/status/12892046737406689290 -
He's rather made it pretty clear that he considers 'murder' and 'manslaughter' to be slightly different labels for essentially the same crime in this case.Pulpstar said:The judge has made it very clear he thinks it was murder in the sentencing remarks. "This is as much as I can give without it being quashed............"
He doesn't pull any punches either, does he? Some of his remarks are brutally direct.1 -
Toby talking bollocks again?Malmesbury said:
London - absolute numbers -Philip_Thompson said:
It doesn't according to the data regularly shared here in that colour coded table. Anyone have access to it?rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?0 -
He's probably breaking a lot of modern slavery rules wrt his elvish workforce. Found some poor race and enslaved them to make toys.Richard_Tyndall said:
I hear he refuses to pay minimum wage or allow time off for Christmas either.Philip_Thompson said:
[Citation Needed]kinabalu said:
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.IanB2 said:
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?Philip_Thompson said:
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.IanB2 said:
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.Philip_Thompson said:
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.IanB2 said:
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.Philip_Thompson said:
We're going to do that!IanB2 said:
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.Quincel said:
Will there be an exception in the regulations for Santa Claus or will he have to leave presents outside for everyone except those in his bubble?Pulpstar said:Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
He doesn't simply give gifts to simply everyone. He draws up a list and checks it twice, he checks whether you've been naughty or nice. If you're naughty then you get a lump of coal so your own behaviour matters.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
If anything I thought the usual controversy is that Santa may consider the children of rich parents to be nicer behaved based on what he leaves them? Santa seems a very right not left wing symbol, there is no evidence of egalitarianism regardless of naughty or nice behaviour from Santa.
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.
Bastard!2 -
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
1 -
If when you're 118 the criminal justice system can guarantee you another 15 years of life, we're going to have an awful problem with geriatric homicidal maniacs looking for this amazing extension.Richard_Tyndall said:
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 yearsPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)
1 -
Or it could be that it was hyped up by people who weren't in the medical community who didn't know any better.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
Not only do you ascribe villainous motivations without evidence you continue to pretend those people have unchecked authority and power and of theres nothing anyone can do - christ, they cannot even enforce lockdown without willing public compliance, and if theres no perceived need no one will accept it.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
There are genuine concerns to be had around overeactions, state power and scrutiny and the like, but you're making such concerns seem like a joke that only deep state conspiracists should share.0 -
I think he's involved with free schools too.kinabalu said:
Protecting our free speech AND at the same time fighting tooth & nail against lockdown.rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?
This man - Toby Young - is something else.0 -
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
Not three words, so it doesn't fulfil Dom's snappiness criteria.Pulpstar said:It's getting lampooned on twitter and whatnot but the Government should change the triple strapline to
Wash Hands >> Cover Face >> Make space0 -
Well obviously they are all lizards who know not to let a crisis go to waste.kle4 said:
I'm incredibly confused as to what nefarious agenda you think is at work. What do you think is being sought and why have nearly all governments in the world shown remarkable cooperation in pushing that agenda?houndtang said:
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:NerysHughes said:
The hospital my wife works at remains empty. They have not had a Covid case for weeks. All staff still get free food in the canteen. Staff regulalrly outnumber patients on wards. All staff are on minimum contract hours and are being requested to take holidays. She used to come home from work tired, now she comes in like she has been for a stroll in a park. She is bored out of her mindkle4 said:
Certainly the medical people I've been involved with since lockdown have included several almost angry at the idea a non Covid issue should come up, I'd not be surprised if the protect the nhs policy was a bit too effective.rottenborough said:
I'm increasingly worried where this is all heading as we seem to be going towards the position that the NHS must be protected from dealing with more than a handful of cases at all costs including finally destroying our economy, sending 1000s to an early death because the NHS is shut for anything else and removing ancient rights of liberty.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, it is a worry. We've put men who hitherto, by the very nature of their professions, were somewhat obscure, introverted, socially awkward and monomaniacal into positions of immense and unchallenged power. We can all see the psychological dangers of such a collision. Not a healthy mix.contrarian said:Chris Whitty is man with enormous power over our lives, unscrutised, unaccountable and it seems, not replaceable. I'm not even sure how qualified he is to make these decisions given he is a medic and not and epidemiologist. He even hinted today he wants to constrain the people pf Britain further
This cannot be right. It cannot.
This isn;t medicine. It is tyranny.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
Life has to go on even during pandemics, we cannot constantly be stopping things for fear of capacity issues.
And to read as recommended earlier in lockdown, The Naked Sun, about a world with no physical contact.
Masks on public transport
Masks in shops
Masks in places of worship
Next - masks in the office, school, street, park, your own home
And 90 odd % of people will still do it.
More lockdowns. The physical, mental, financial and spiritual health of a nation steadily being sapped day by day.
Despite the fact that as you say the NHS is twiddling its useless thumbs.
I never believed in conspiracy theories of any kind before this. But this has gone beyond incompetence now. There has to be an agenda at work. And the compliant masses just sleepwalk straight into it. Just unbelievably depressed about the future of this country and the world.0 -
'Starting points' for murder and so forth are higher as he makes clear in the remarks. Not all life terms are equal.rottenborough said:
How does that work? You can get a life sentence for man slaughter iirc.Pulpstar said:The judge has made it very clear he thinks it was murder in the sentencing remarks. "This is as much as I can give without it being quashed............"
0 -
I am trying to remember where I saw it - think it was an outer limits episode - where they gave eternal life (medical maguffin) to prisoners. Who got life-means-life....ydoethur said:
If when you're 118 the criminal justice system can guarantee you another 15 years of life, we're going to have an awful problem with geriatric homicidal maniacs looking for this amazing extension.Richard_Tyndall said:
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 yearsPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)0 -
The secret is that it only works if you mix it 50/50 with bleach before injecting it.MaxPB said:
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.1 -
No that's unfair. I am not claiming its useful.MaxPB said:
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
There is the famous, if somewhat xenophobic, story of an Irish judge, who earned immortality by sentencing a man to 173 years for a series of heinous crimes and saying, 'But don't worry, you won't serve all of that. We allow up to one-third remission for good conduct.'Malmesbury said:
I am trying to remember where I saw it - think it was an outer limits episode - where they gave eternal life (medical maguffin) to prisoners. Who got life-means-life....ydoethur said:
If when you're 118 the criminal justice system can guarantee you another 15 years of life, we're going to have an awful problem with geriatric homicidal maniacs looking for this amazing extension.Richard_Tyndall said:
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 yearsPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes life should mean life.kinabalu said:
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.kinabalu said:
In general I support alternatives to prison but you have to treat each case on its own merit. For example, vice is not always a victimless crime. It can be but often it isn't. As for murder sentences, if every murder carries whole life you lose the ability to distinguish. Torture murder of child = knifing over a drug deal = spousal killing over an affair? Surely not. Also, it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials. So mega money needed for prisons. Will not wash with the public. And then the @DavidL points about incentives to plead guilty and behave etc. No - not like this idea. It should be dropped following this exchange.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe we could eliminate victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution etc by legalising those and stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes while still incarcerating murderers for life. 15% of prisoners are there for nothing more serious than a drugs offence, an order of magnitude more times than the number of murderers in prison.kinabalu said:
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.Philip_Thompson said:
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.Richard_Tyndall said:
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.Philip_Thompson said:
That's what they'll actually serve.Philip_Thompson said:10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper
8 years and 8 months for the other two.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison. That should happen with these killers.
But even if it was required then cutting costs should not be a justification for releasing murderers.
The only reason I don't support the death penalty for murder is that you might execute an innocent person and if someone is still in jail you can release them if you later find them to be innocent. If someone has been executed you can't unexecute them, but that's not a reason to ever release them back on the streets.
To which you said -
"Life should mean life. If you get a life sentence because you murdered someone then you should spend the rest of your life in jail. You should die in prison."
??
If the perp is not being sentenced to a life sentence it should be called something else. Don't dishonestly call it life, while having every intention of releasing the murderer.
Honesty matters.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)
I personally like to think it was true, and that the judge far from being an idiot was an intelligent man with a very dry wit who placed this final cherry of torture on the convict's cake.0 -
There are currently 854 hospitals in England. As at the 30th July there are 830 Covid inpatients. That is less than 1 per hospital.
3 -
Nobody has yet explained to me how hydroxychoroquin is meant to work without the presence of zinc. Its antiviral action is afaik its ability to introduce zinc into the cell, which then prevents virus reproduction. Only one trial that I am aware of has combined zinc and hydroxychloroquin, and that showed modest benefits. All the others that have shown zero or negative results have not used zinc at all. If that's not a conspiracy, it's a hell of a cock up.MaxPB said:
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
LOL exactly.Luckyguy1983 said:
I support Roger Waters' freedom of speech, but you don't *automatically* get a letter into The Times, do you? I should imagine they receive somewhat more letters than they publish.isam said:
It is EXTREMELY difficult to get them published even when you have managed to be pithy, to the point, acute, erudite and relevant.
That said, I have managed to do this a few times successfully but the hit rate is very, very low.1 -
But you are claiming the medical establishment are trying to discredit it. If it's crap that's what they should do.contrarian said:
No that's unfair. I am not claiming its useful.MaxPB said:
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
Why do you think the medical establishment would do such a thing? Who are they? And given this is the most prominent news story of the last 2 decades, why do think they could get away with falsely discrediting something like that given how many would be involved? Hiw much money do you think it takes to silence everyone who might know something about this conspiracy? I'd ask for a lot.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
As others have said, objecting to it being discredited makes no sense unless you think it should not have been discredited. Itd be like objecting to the discrediting of miasma theory.0 -
Big vaccination drive to achieve full herd immunity, full loosening of restrictions (Nightclubs fully open etc), evidence of vaccination or antibodies for people entering the UK, ongoing study to determine the long term efficacy of the vaccine - possibly top up vaccinations for at risk groups on an annual basis - or everyone if you're prepared to pay for it; investment in UK production facilities or at least securing supply not reliant on China.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.2 -
A vaccine isn't going to eradicate the virus.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.0 -
Then why bring it up? It was a drug that was hyped up by the likes of Trump and then actual efficacy trials proved it had no or even a negative effect on patient outcomes. You saying that it was a medical industry agenda to bury it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist and so does your stance on a vaccine. There's definitely some permanent change to working patterns that will change the economy in the short to medium term but a vaccine gets us back to almost 100% of where we were and with a population that has had a savings rate of ~30% for a solid 9 months which will be a huge net positive for a long time.contrarian said:
No that's unfair. I am not claiming its useful.MaxPB said:
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.contrarian said:
its quite clear from what has happened with hydroxowhatsit that if the medical establishment want to discredit a drug, whatever its efficacy , they have the power.rottenborough said:
They could just say there is no evidence the vaccine provides anything other than a few months of immunity, which there wont be when it first comes out. So we need to take the injection and then lock down again next May.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.0 -
No, but it makes it far more manageable. Like the other virus that are vaccinated for but aren't yet eradicated.Andy_JS said:
A vaccine isn't going to eradicate the virus.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.0 -
Imagine there was a daily press conference with Boris and the CMO.kle4 said:
Not only do you ascribe villainous motivations without evidence you continue to pretend those people have unchecked authority and power and of theres nothing anyone can do - christ, they cannot even enforce lockdown without willing public compliance, and if theres no perceived need no one will accept it.contrarian said:
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
What, and let all the enormous power they have been given by the British state to interfere in the lives of ordinary people unchecked and unscrutinised and backed up by a bullyboy police force, just evaporate? Just like that?
I don;t think it is going to work like that. I really don't.
There are genuine concerns to be had around overeactions, state power and scrutiny and the like, but you're making such concerns seem like a joke that only deep state conspiracists should share.
Imagine the topic was:
1) Smoking
2) Mountain climbing
3) Driving
4) Motorsports
5) Horse racing
6) Skiing
What do you think the CMO would be saying about that stuff?0 -
Ironically, Mr Justice Edis has today also been promoted to the Court of Appeal, although I imagine he would recuse himself from any hearing on this case! https://twitter.com/mckinneytweets/status/12892091075017809920
-
It will in this country and we can require vaccinations certificates for all international travellers.Andy_JS said:
A vaccine isn't going to eradicate the virus.Philip_Thompson said:
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?contrarian said:
The virus will never be gone.RochdalePioneers said:Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
So how will you ever be free?
How will you ever not have to 'take precautions?' or 'save lives' or ditch gimping it up in a mask whenever you go out?
What's your way out?
What's your way back to our liberties and freedoms and prosperity that have always existed whatever befell us?
Because I can;t see one.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.0
