Thoughts and prayers for Donald Trump watching Fox News, meanwhile on CNN – politicalbetting.com

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

If he really is 17 then we won't even get to see his face or hear his name...

bondegezou said:

Theuniondivvie said:

GIN1138 said:

Tweedledee said:

GIN1138 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Awks, from the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Nov 2023.

The Paymaster General has suggested stripping some older people of the Winter Fuel Payment.

I’ve written to the Chancellor asking him to clarify whether he is considering this for the Autumn Statement.

Pensioners mustn’t be forced to bear the brunt of Tory economic failure.

https://x.com/darrenpjones/status/1726503349036748968

Dare we hope that we get the '"... independent review" of the triple lock' next then?

I knew you and @MaxPB would be celebrating the fuel allowance being axed for most pensioners as you hate old people! 😂

Quite so.

Seems a bit myopic. Bart n Max are tadpoles who have really got it in for frogs.

They'll be frogs themselves one day lol...

Eternal tadpolehood a possibility, at least spiritually.

https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/the-giant-tadpole-that-never-got-its-legs

Or Bart and Max are axolotls? Sentient, keyboarding axolotls.

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

Society gains by not having the death penalty.

Miscarriages of justices happen. There is no death penalty system in the world, ever, that doesn't risk executing an innocent person.

A wrongly convicted person can be released, even after decades. A wrongly executed person can't be brought back to life.

Foss said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

If he really is 17 then we won't even get to see his face or hear his name...

Unless a judge says otherwise:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/02/brianna-ghey-murderers-named-sentenced-to-life-in-prison

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

Society gains by not having the death penalty.

Miscarriages of justices happen. There is no death penalty system in the world, ever, that doesn't risk executing an innocent person.

A wrongly convicted person can be released, even after decades. A wrongly executed person can't be brought back to life.

As I said, rare instance.

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

The argument of setting a good example is probably the weakest one you could make against the death penalty.

It could also apply to any other form of punishment. Does having prisons make people think it's ok to keep people locked up?

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

And yet here we are without the death penalty and two dead children.

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary:

https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1818011536335704150

There is a clear issue here: either the spending plans in Estimates signed off by Senior Civil Servants and presented to Parliament are incorrect, or the document the Chancellor has produced to the House today is incorrect.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. If Reeves is right about the current state of finances, and I assume she is, then I think Hunt is right then surely some civil servants are in big trouble also?

Responsibility of chief accounting officer was a very big deal for perm secs when I was in govt.

https://x.com/annemcelvoy/status/1818018964414325208

Labour will be regretting that Jeremy Hunt didn’t lose his seat.

https://x.com/BenChu_/status/1817947736743833782?t=kG3Wbph-sAddEkn3wl6o2g&s=19

OBR seems to think they were misinformed by treasury?

Is the other possibility that it's Internal Tory Games?

F'r example, one big dollop of the overspend seems to have been on asylum, and it rather looks like nobody was even keeping track of it. Maybe Hunt didn't know about it because nobody told him. So why was that?

williamglenn said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

The argument of setting a good example is probably the weakest one you could make against the death penalty.

It could also apply to any other form of punishment. Does having prisons make people think it's ok to keep people locked up?

OK.
It's morally wrong.
Is that better?

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

But you wouldn't apply the death penalty to a 17 year old I assume?

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

The argument of setting a good example is probably the weakest one you could make against the death penalty.

It could also apply to any other form of punishment. Does having prisons make people think it's ok to keep people locked up?

OK.
It's morally wrong.
Is that better?

Is it not morally wrong to deprive people of their liberty?

darkage said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

The CPS were boasting recently in one of their social media posts about prosecuting a pair of 12 year olds for murder. The usual lines stuck out... 'thoughts are with the victim', 'sending a clear message', etc

In other countries IE Finland the age of criminal responsibility is 16, in the recent school shooting earlier this year there was no consequence for the perpetrator. It was just viewed as a tragedy connected to bullying.

It is pretty clear in my mind which is the more civilised country.

Well possibly. But I don't think the sole determinant of how civilised a country is is how it treats people who commit the worst crimes.

williamglenn said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

The argument of setting a good example is probably the weakest one you could make against the death penalty.

It could also apply to any other form of punishment. Does having prisons make people think it's ok to keep people locked up?

OK.
It's morally wrong.
Is that better?

Is it not morally wrong to deprive people of their liberty?

Good question. What exactly does that mean? I mean, we're all deprived of our liberty every day. Do you mean is it wrong to lock people up in jail?

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

Society gains by not having the death penalty.

Miscarriages of justices happen. There is no death penalty system in the world, ever, that doesn't risk executing an innocent person.

A wrongly convicted person can be released, even after decades. A wrongly executed person can't be brought back to life.

As I said, rare instance.

How do you draw the line such that it catches your rare instances, while never under any circumstances executing an innocent in a miscarriage of justice?

I don't know. Which is why I don't support the death penalty being brought back, even for these cases. We just have to rely on the prison system to do the job and finish this guy off.

darkage said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

The CPS were boasting recently in one of their social media posts about prosecuting a pair of 12 year olds for murder. The usual lines stuck out... 'thoughts are with the victim', 'sending a clear message', etc

In other countries IE Finland the age of criminal responsibility is 16, in the recent school shooting earlier this year there was no consequence for the perpetrator. It was just viewed as a tragedy connected to bullying.

It is pretty clear in my mind which is the more civilised country.

I'm fine with taking the view that children's brains aren't developed etc., but I think a kid that's done that needs to be detained in some sort of facility as happened with the Bulger killers. And then, hopefully, they can have a normal adult life at some point (I think that has actually been the case with one of the Bulger killers).

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

Society gains by not having the death penalty.

Miscarriages of justices happen. There is no death penalty system in the world, ever, that doesn't risk executing an innocent person.

A wrongly convicted person can be released, even after decades. A wrongly executed person can't be brought back to life.

As I said, rare instance.

How do you draw the line such that it catches your rare instances, while never under any circumstances executing an innocent in a miscarriage of justice?

I don't know. Which is why I don't support the death penalty being brought back, even for these cases. We just have to rely on the prison system to do the job and finish this guy off.

That's weak. You want someone else to get their hands dirty so that you don't have to shoulder any share of the responsibility.

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I think you'll find that's communism.

If you achieve the same thing via a very expensive series of consultancies, outsourcing, Capita/etc, and a byzantine set of rules that feck over the poor in particular, then it's fine. If anything, to be encouraged.

With the death penalty, I am coming to the view that it is just something that we have to do; it isn't what I want, but it is needed in order to reset the circuit on criminal justice policy. At the moment we have created a system of very long and whole life jail sentences because there is an idea that some prisoners don't have any possibility of redemption or rehabilitation. But these jail sentences (ie where there is no hope of progress through the system and no chance of release) are actually a form of torture. People need to face up to the question whether these people should instead be executed rather than just kept away forever. What purpose is keeping them alive serving?

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

'According to a study dating back to 2010, there were at least three times as many psychopaths in executive or CEO roles than in the overall population. '
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-many-successful-millionaires-are-psychopaths-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-bad-thing.html

'Research suggests politicians are more likely to be psychopaths'
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-11364143/

Yep.
Simply declaring a murderer to be a "psychopath", therefore worthy of death, is a slippery slope. TV doctor Robert Winston is a self confessed one.

One could even think of certain recent PMs with similar traits...maybe some Presidents too

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

There are a heck of a lot of psychopaths around. Many contribute a great deal to society.
Not sure killing them all just in case is efficient.
Not killing is a better plan. Then people don't think it's OK to kill.

'According to a study dating back to 2010, there were at least three times as many psychopaths in executive or CEO roles than in the overall population. '
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-many-successful-millionaires-are-psychopaths-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-bad-thing.html

'Research suggests politicians are more likely to be psychopaths'
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-11364143/

trouble is society is so dumb it labels anyone who is a bit ruthless in their job as a psychopath and many people think they are Norman Bates - Its ridiculous and juvenile the way we label perfectly law abiding people these days - CEO's are of course going to be competitive and selfish to some degree -

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

Quite so. And as for all these 'public sector fatcats' on pensions of £50-80k a year, referenced earlier, I'd love to know how many of them there are - not many, I'd guess. I was a pretty highly paid civil servant, and my pension is nowhere near that sort of amount - indeed, it's well below average earnings.

There's a lot of myths around public sector pensions, centred around a pretty small number of very senior staff who happen to have large pensions. The reality is much more mundane for most of us - not that I'm complaining, I have a decent pension.

darkage said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Does this comment attract a ban ? I would be interested in light of the discussions yesterday.
But I actually agree with it to a point. It should be either a) 10 years in jail, b) life in a secure psychiatric hospital, or c) the death penalty. I don't see the point of a 60 year 'whole life' sentence, it is basically the same thing as a death sentence that we are too afraid to carry out. Either you have a policy of rehabilitation/redemption or you don't.

I agree massively long sentences are completely pointless. I'm also against the death penalty.

It may be justified for public safety to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, but as justice I'm not seeing it. This is for several reasons:

1. While I see convincing evidence of consciousness, I don't see intellectually convincing evidence of free will (although I like to think I have it, I cannot justify it)
2. Similarly while I like to believe there's a soul or something, I can't see evidence of it. So what are we punishing? Atoms? A computer program? Both these points to me dispense of the righteousness of the "punishment" aspect. Indeed making things unpleasant for someone who in some certain sense literally couldn't stop what they were doing is perhaps cruel
3. So we get onto deterrence. Well, I simply don't believe that a sentence much above 15 years (actually in prison) is particularly useful there. There's probably *something* I would do for 15 years in prison I wouldn't do for 25. Can't think what though.
4. Finally there's public protection. Well that's where life sentences can be useful. There are people so irretrievably broken that they do have to be kept away from the public for life.

Balancing all the above quasi philosophical positions though is practicality. We saw what IPP did, and it wasn't good. Politics is applied philosophy and all that... so we probably have to diverge from my principles.

But yeah 60 years is stupid.

darkage said:

With the death penalty, I am coming to the view that it is just something that we have to do; it isn't what I want, but it is needed in order to reset the circuit on criminal justice policy. At the moment we have created a system of very long and whole life jail sentences because there is an idea that some prisoners don't have any possibility of redemption or rehabilitation. But these jail sentences (ie where there is no hope of progress through the system and no chance of release) are actually a form of torture. People need to face up to the question whether these people should instead be executed rather than just kept away forever. What purpose is keeping them alive serving?

Have you ever watched Nigel Kneale's "Year of the Sex Olympics"? (It's not how it sounds, if you haven't) I sometimes think (or worry) that there's a halfway house between life in jail and reality TV.

It's a grim thought, but I admit I've had it.

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Respectfully disagree.
Two children have died.
Killing a third won't make it any better.

At 17 if a person doesn't know not to murder children and babies then their moral compass will never be correct. He is a psychopath and I don't see what society gains by having him locked up for 60+ years.

Society gains by not having the death penalty.

Miscarriages of justices happen. There is no death penalty system in the world, ever, that doesn't risk executing an innocent person.

A wrongly convicted person can be released, even after decades. A wrongly executed person can't be brought back to life.

As I said, rare instance.

How do you draw the line such that it catches your rare instances, while never under any circumstances executing an innocent in a miscarriage of justice?

I don't know. Which is why I don't support the death penalty being brought back, even for these cases. We just have to rely on the prison system to do the job and finish this guy off.

That's weak. You want someone else to get their hands dirty so that you don't have to shoulder any share of the responsibility.

It is also contradictory. Against the death penalty due to the burden of proof - but in favour of extra judicial murders informally facilitated by the state.

This is a very enjoyable line of argument tonight.
Great points made on both sides.

Dumbosaurus said:

darkage said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Does this comment attract a ban ? I would be interested in light of the discussions yesterday.
But I actually agree with it to a point. It should be either a) 10 years in jail, b) life in a secure psychiatric hospital, or c) the death penalty. I don't see the point of a 60 year 'whole life' sentence, it is basically the same thing as a death sentence that we are too afraid to carry out. Either you have a policy of rehabilitation/redemption or you don't.

I agree massively long sentences are completely pointless. I'm also against the death penalty.

It may be justified for public safety to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, but as justice I'm not seeing it. This is for several reasons:

1. While I see convincing evidence of consciousness, I don't see intellectually convincing evidence of free will (although I like to think I have it, I cannot justify it)
2. Similarly while I like to believe there's a soul or something, I can't see evidence of it. So what are we punishing? Atoms? A computer program? Both these points to me dispense of the righteousness of the "punishment" aspect. Indeed making things unpleasant for someone who in some certain sense literally couldn't stop what they were doing is perhaps cruel
3. So we get onto deterrence. Well, I simply don't believe that a sentence much above 15 years (actually in prison) is particularly useful there. There's probably *something* I would do for 15 years in prison I wouldn't do for 25. Can't think what though.
4. Finally there's public protection. Well that's where life sentences can be useful. There are people so irretrievably broken that they do have to be kept away from the public for life.

Balancing all the above quasi philosophical positions though is practicality. We saw what IPP did, and it wasn't good. Politics is applied philosophy and all that... so we probably have to diverge from my principles.

But yeah 60 years is stupid.

I think its rather worrying you think like that personally

If Jeremy Hunt wanted to throw his hat in the ring for Con leadership, I don't think he's done his chances any harm at all with his response to Reeves statement.

If not, the new leader should keep him on as shadow Chancellor.

Dumbosaurus said:

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

TBF have you (well I think you have and actually you may be able to help my wife change careers given where you live and what I think you do, don't take anything I have said against her ) looked at a public sector job application form? If I were applying for one then nowadays I'd use an LLM but previously would just have been "nah".

This isn't an explanation of anything really. I just think those forms are a fecking joke.

They are bullshit.
And references taken up before interview. My arse.

GIN1138 said:

If Jeremy Hunt wanted to throw his hat in the ring for Con leadership, I don't think he's done his chances any harm at all with his response to Reeves statement.

If not, the new leader should keep him on as shadow Chancellor.

Didn't the deadline close today? Today's performance certainly gets him a seat in the Lords (and a few boardrooms) when he stands down mind you.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

There's a name going round social media but I think it's someone mucking as it translates to "My apartment"

This basically bursts the bubble of most of the nonsense going around on social media.

The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is originally from Cardiff, moved to the Southport area with his Rwandan parents when he was aged six.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/southport-major-incident-stabbing-police/

I don't have twitter/x or FB, and the telegraph is paywalled. Could you give a tldr of what bubble and what's burst it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

There's a name going round social media but I think it's someone mucking as it translates to "My apartment"

This basically bursts the bubble of most of the nonsense going around on social media.

The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is originally from Cardiff, moved to the Southport area with his Rwandan parents when he was aged six.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/southport-major-incident-stabbing-police/

Deport the parents.
Not sure where to would be suitable?

Stereodog said:

Northern_Al said:

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

Quite so. And as for all these 'public sector fatcats' on pensions of £50-80k a year, referenced earlier, I'd love to know how many of them there are - not many, I'd guess. I was a pretty highly paid civil servant, and my pension is nowhere near that sort of amount - indeed, it's well below average earnings.

There's a lot of myths around public sector pensions, centred around a pretty small number of very senior staff who happen to have large pensions. The reality is much more mundane for most of us - not that I'm complaining, I have a decent pension.

I find it frustrating that people think Civil Servants are all Sir Humphrey types with massive pensions. The vast majority of Civil Servants are on fairly low salaries answering calls or processing passport applications etc.

But they all get £100k a year, gold plated, index-linked pensions though, right? .... right?

edit

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dumbosaurus said:

darkage said:

MaxPB said:

Two of the kids have died. This is a rare instance where the death penalty makes sense to me, it's cut and dried and society gains nothing by keeping this absolute **** locked up for 60+ years.

Hopefully a prison warden will let slip the identity and the other prisoners will deal with him.

Two children who have had their lives snatched away from them, two families absolutely devastated tonight. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for those parents who put their kids in the daycare not realising what was about to happen.

Every parent in the country is horrified by this, I know my wife and I both are, life in jail just doesn't seem to be enough. If it was my child that had been murdered I'd want to pull the trigger myself.

Does this comment attract a ban ? I would be interested in light of the discussions yesterday.
But I actually agree with it to a point. It should be either a) 10 years in jail, b) life in a secure psychiatric hospital, or c) the death penalty. I don't see the point of a 60 year 'whole life' sentence, it is basically the same thing as a death sentence that we are too afraid to carry out. Either you have a policy of rehabilitation/redemption or you don't.

I agree massively long sentences are completely pointless. I'm also against the death penalty.

It may be justified for public safety to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, but as justice I'm not seeing it. This is for several reasons:

1. While I see convincing evidence of consciousness, I don't see intellectually convincing evidence of free will (although I like to think I have it, I cannot justify it)
2. Similarly while I like to believe there's a soul or something, I can't see evidence of it. So what are we punishing? Atoms? A computer program? Both these points to me dispense of the righteousness of the "punishment" aspect. Indeed making things unpleasant for someone who in some certain sense literally couldn't stop what they were doing is perhaps cruel
3. So we get onto deterrence. Well, I simply don't believe that a sentence much above 15 years (actually in prison) is particularly useful there. There's probably *something* I would do for 15 years in prison I wouldn't do for 25. Can't think what though.
4. Finally there's public protection. Well that's where life sentences can be useful. There are people so irretrievably broken that they do have to be kept away from the public for life.

Balancing all the above quasi philosophical positions though is practicality. We saw what IPP did, and it wasn't good. Politics is applied philosophy and all that... so we probably have to diverge from my principles.

But yeah 60 years is stupid.

60 years is stupid for murder, completely agreed, it should be life to mean whole life for anyone who is guilty, without a possibility of parole.

60 years could mean released at 77 and potentially getting a quarter of a century of liberty after that. That is stupid I agree.

Life should mean until you die behind bars. Unless for some reason it is revealed to be a miscarriage of justice at which point we can release you, but we can't unexecute you.

What are you achieving locking someone up that long? The only argument that makes sense to me (in a civilised society; in less civilised ones it might be necessary to prevent vigilantism) is public protection and that is clearly not necessary with many murderers.

(Google says five traditional purposes of punishment are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution if you want a cheat sheet )

Stereodog said:

Northern_Al said:

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

Quite so. And as for all these 'public sector fatcats' on pensions of £50-80k a year, referenced earlier, I'd love to know how many of them there are - not many, I'd guess. I was a pretty highly paid civil servant, and my pension is nowhere near that sort of amount - indeed, it's well below average earnings.

There's a lot of myths around public sector pensions, centred around a pretty small number of very senior staff who happen to have large pensions. The reality is much more mundane for most of us - not that I'm complaining, I have a decent pension.

I find it frustrating that people think Civil Servants are all Sir Humphrey types with massive pensions. The vast majority of Civil Servants are on fairly low salaries answering calls or processing passport applications etc.

As are the vast majority of those working in routine jobs in the private sector, but that's not the point.

The issue is, surely, in the like-for-like comparisons:

A senior manager on 120k in the Civil Service typically has a better pension and more benefits and protections than a senior manager on the same salary working for a private SME-type business.

A junior associate level person earning 37.5k in the Civil Service gets better supplementary stuff than the equivalent grade in the private sector, and so on.

Now, it used to be that the gold-plated pensions and easier working life in general in the Civil Service was offset by better base salaries and other advantages in the private sector, but this ceased to be the case in most instances quite a long time ago, except for a small number of individuals in very specialist roles in certain industries like banking, or those at directorship level in large organisations.

Richard_Tyndall said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

The idea as I understand it is the state just gives people a sum of money to meet their basic needs, rather than going through the chaos and inequality of being required to apply for benefits/handouts. I don't think it is communism as it is only a basic income.

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

There's a name going round social media but I think it's someone mucking as it translates to "My apartment"

This basically bursts the bubble of most of the nonsense going around on social media.

The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is originally from Cardiff, moved to the Southport area with his Rwandan parents when he was aged six.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/southport-major-incident-stabbing-police/

Deport the parents.
Not sure where to would be suitable?

Rawanda.

Dumbosaurus said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

The idea as I understand it is the state just gives people a sum of money to meet their basic needs, rather than going through the chaos and inequality of being required to apply for benefits/handouts. I don't think it is communism as it is only a basic income.

Exactly. It's a brilliant idea. It's just an absolute bugger to figure out how to transition to it.

There is also the other small problem, it will be controlled by politicians.....

It will only a matter of time until, its will this group needs a top up because of y, this group doesn't need it as much, so we will cut that from them.

Its one of those classic economics textbook solutions which if everybody responds to the incentives as they logically will according to my model and it is operated in the manner it is intended, it will work great....

The judges must release the identity of the killer. Otherwise there will be a massive racist conspiratorial fervor. It's in the public interest

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

Maybe it's the other way around?

I tried many times to get onto the Civil Service gravy train, having spent many years in relatively senior roles working closely with various government departments and accumulating a fairly impressive CV. Got nowhere and eventually gave up.

The likes of me clearly don't fit into their plans. Maybe they could tell? Maybe there's an alarm somewhere that goes off whenever a government-sceptic Libertarian applies for a role.

KnightOut said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

Surely it's better to have a money-doling-out system that requires near-zero administration and which can't be cheated than one which ultimately costs the same, but because of the costs of running it and enforcing/policiing it, results in less money being doled out?

I'm fairly strongly in favour of UBI for these very reasons. (But only if it truly means the end of all the existing benefits systems and associated faffery).

We could certainly operate much more along those principles e.g. tax credits are really dumb if you think about it, you take a load of money of people, you get them to fill in a load of forms, there is a load of people have to assess the situation and some of that money comes back to you. And in the meantime, there is fraud and expensive admin. Yes there is the edge case where people get more out than they put in, but you can deal with that as well.

KnightOut said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

Surely it's better to have a money-doling-out system that requires near-zero administration and which can't be cheated than one which ultimately costs the same, but because of the costs of running it and enforcing/policiing it, results in less money being doled out?

I'm fairly strongly in favour of UBI for these very reasons. (But only if it truly means the end of all the existing benefits systems and associated faffery).

Same here, but it needs to be truly universal and true elimination of all other income-related benefits.

Merge all benefits and taxes into one clean, flat, system.

Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.

BartholomewRoberts said:

KnightOut said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

GIN1138 said:

Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍

I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.

... or just move to a system of 'basic income' at a similar level to the state pension - surely it is basically the same thing?

I am not sure what you mean by a system of basic income. Apologies. It is not a term I am familiar with.

I am not in favour of any system that sees the taxpayer doling out money on a uniform basis to people irrespective of their needs. Hence my belief in the principle of means testing for all benefits.

Surely it's better to have a money-doling-out system that requires near-zero administration and which can't be cheated than one which ultimately costs the same, but because of the costs of running it and enforcing/policiing it, results in less money being doled out?

I'm fairly strongly in favour of UBI for these very reasons. (But only if it truly means the end of all the existing benefits systems and associated faffery).

Same here, but it needs to be truly universal and true elimination of all other income-related benefits.

Merge all benefits and taxes into one clean, flat, system.

Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.

The problem is there will be winners and losers and politicians seem absolutely adverse to taking any incoming fire from where there will be some edge case scenarios in which people get screwed.

It either got to be massive groups of people who lose (normally the rich) or not at all.

GIN1138 said:

Yokes said:

I'd not crow too much. Unlike 2020 where Trump always looked like he would lose, he is very much in this one.

Yeah, I'm not sure how this one will go. In 2016 I always knew it would be Trump. In 2020 I always thought Biden.

I'm genuinely unsure about 2024.

But I do hope it's Kamala and America can finally move on from The Orange One...

dixiedean said:

You would think, given a career of indolence, followed by a long retirement on a huge pension that folk would be fighting each other to work in the Public Sector.
Given that we are all rational actors in the market place.
But, strangely, they aren't.
That paradox has never been quite resolved.
Mysterious.

Becasue the "gold-plated" pension is more gold leaf obscuring the base metal of poor pay compared to equivalent jobs in the private sector.