10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
There are so many problems with that. 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.
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).
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.
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).
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.
He pleaded guilty ...
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.
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.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
You would have been great to have around during the Second World War wouldn't you:
"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.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
There should be a judge-led inquiry. What if it turns out Santa rewards bad behaviour?
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
And having someone on it is very far from the worst scenario...
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.
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.
The Radical "Do Nothing" Democrats are hardly anything to frighten the horses.
How can they be if they will be doing nothing?
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...
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.
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'.
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.
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.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
There are so many problems with that. 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.
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).
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.
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).
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.
He pleaded guilty ...
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.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
There should be a judge-led inquiry. What if it turns out Santa rewards bad behaviour?
Isn't that the business model of Victoria's Secret?
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
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.....
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
He leaves more expensive presents for children of richer parents.
Totally regressive.
Actually hadn't thought of that. That makes Santa rather like private schools and thus to be phased out.
PB at its best - a thoughtful contribution changing my mind on an important issue.
In fact I'm not calling him Santa anymore from now until he's phased out. It's Claus.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit. 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.
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.
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.
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit. 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.
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.
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.
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 unreliable
And also the last person to believe the hundreds of thousands of deaths prediction when that has happened precisely nowhere, lockdown or no lockdown.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit. 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.
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.
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.
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 unreliable
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit. 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.
There is an agenda. The agenda is obvious. The agenda is publicly stated.
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.
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 unreliable
And also the last person to believe the hundreds of thousands of deaths prediction when that has happened precisely nowhere, lockdown or no lockdown.
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
There are so many problems with that. 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.
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).
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.
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).
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.
He pleaded guilty ...
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.
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.
No. Guilty pleas in a murder case led to an automatic death sentence.
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').
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.
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.
If murder ultimately carries a far higher sentence, then the prospect of long imprisonment discourages this.
"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."
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
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.
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!!!
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There are (unfortunately) many such examples.
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.
If murder ultimately carries a far higher sentence, then the prospect of long imprisonment discourages this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
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.
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!!!
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?'
it would cascade down to heavier sentences for all other crimes - to maintain differentials.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And that dreadful rapist recently. Killed no-one but oh boy.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
There are so many problems with that. 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.
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).
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.
I'm surprised you haven't argued for the death penalty (on economic saving grounds).
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.
He pleaded guilty ...
He wouldn't have done if the judge had the black cap on.
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.
No. Guilty pleas in a murder case led to an automatic death sentence.
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').
A case which - pun intended - sounded the death knell for the death sentence.
And just as it was scrapped, with exquisite timing along came Ian and Myra.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
[Citation Needed]
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.
I started to have doubts when I realised that Santa shopped in the County Stores, my grandmother’s favourite Taunton food seller.
as if always having the same size footprints as your father wasn’t evidence enough.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
Punishes bad behaviour, not very lefty.
Virtue signals punishing bad behaviour, but actually just rewards the richest kids with the most presents. Yes could be a Bluekip Santa.
In my experience, the naughty list exists only in theory...
People still believe that hospitals are overrun with Covid cases...
Evidence?
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.
"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."
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
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%).
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.
"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."
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.
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.
"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."
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?
It would be odd if the judge was using information not available to the jury to influence their decision on the matter.
Might have been after the verdict?
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.
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............"
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
That's a slightly different point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
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?
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
Will you be getting the vaccine (If you're eligible) when it's out ?
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
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.
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!!!
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?'
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. 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!!
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
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.
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.
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............"
How does that work? You can get a life sentence for man slaughter iirc.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
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.
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.
People dont like to think of murderers serving their time and reentering society. But presumably most of them do just that.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
None of the vaccines provide lasting immunity? I assume this has been published.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
[Citation Needed]
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.
I hear he refuses to pay minimum wage or allow time off for Christmas either.
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'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.
He doesn't pull any punches either, does he? Some of his remarks are brutally direct.
Has the Gov't started thinking about christmas ? Or more soon the schools reopening ?
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?
Just remember to leave the hand sanitiser bottle out next to the mince pie and sherry.
We're going to do that!
The surprise is that a right winger such as your good self still expects to be receiving free handouts.
Father Christmas is a good right wing symbol.
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.
Credit to you for being willing to put out the hand sanitiser in anticipation of exchange for a lump of coal.
I've always managed to be on the nice list so far.
What that means for his checking abilities I'm not sure.
Perhaps it means that in a parallel universe somewhere, Santa is giving having a social conscience a higher weighting?
Perhaps but I see no evidence that in our universe Santa cares about it.
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.
Santa is left of centre. I think most accept this.
[Citation Needed]
He leaves presents based upon naughty/nice behaviour - and arguably based on parental earnings.
Right of centre.
I hear he refuses to pay minimum wage or allow time off for Christmas either.
Bastard!
He's probably breaking a lot of modern slavery rules wrt his elvish workforce. Found some poor race and enslaved them to make toys.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 years
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
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 is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the heat is getting to me and I am over reacting, but this is getting worrying.
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.
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.
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 mind
When are people going to wake up ffs?? I cannot believe how people are swallowing this bullshit:
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.
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?
Well obviously they are all lizards who know not to let a crisis go to waste.
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............"
How does that work? You can get a life sentence for man slaughter iirc.
'Starting points' for murder and so forth are higher as he makes clear in the remarks. Not all life terms are equal.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 years
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.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)
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....
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
The secret is that it only works if you mix it 50/50 with bleach before injecting it.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
10 years and 8 months for the driver of the vehicle that killed PC Harper 8 years and 8 months for the other two.
That's what they'll actually serve.
16 years and 13 years are the sentences. So not life sentences.
A starting point for murder is 15 years so the driver actually got more than that.
The problem here is not the verdict or the sentence but the system that means you only serve half your term.
That 15 years can be considered appropriate for murder is a problem in itself, not a justification.
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.
In which case we would need a very substantial investment in our prisons system.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say all murder offences should be whole life, but more should.
The current situation is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence but the perp does not usually serve life.
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."
??
Yes life should mean life.
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.
At present if you are over 118 years then life means 15 years
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.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)
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....
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.'
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
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.
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.
LOL exactly.
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
No that's unfair. I am not claiming its useful.
But you are claiming the medical establishment are trying to discredit it. If it's crap that's what they should do.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
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.
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
Contrarian is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
Lol you're a Hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist.
No that's unfair. I am not claiming its useful.
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 is right. If we unlock everything today the virus will be gone tomorrow.
The virus will never be gone.
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.
Why won't the virus ever ben gone?
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
If you think Vallance, Witty and Co are gonna let us off that easy, well, I feel sorry for you.
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.
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.
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 there was a daily press conference with Boris and the CMO.
Comments
Looks like it might reach 37 degrees at Heathrow later on. Currently 36.
"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.
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.
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."
??
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
The government official policy is to use the ONS numbers.
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').
If murder ultimately carries a far higher sentence, then the prospect of long imprisonment discourages this.
Was this a visit by the whole court, or is it usual for a judge to go to the scene like this?
Genius.
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
https://twitter.com/rogerwaters/status/1289047234760314880?s=21
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.
And just as it was scrapped, with exquisite timing along came Ian and Myra.
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.
Vaccines are literally in Phase III trials already. We just need to manage until a vaccine arrives.
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.
Toby kicks back against Hancock. Why is NW shutting down when London has higher % testing positive on ONS figures?
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.
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.
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!!
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.
This man - Toby Young - is something else.
Bastard!
London - scaled to 100K population -
https://twitter.com/Danjamesmartin/status/1289204673740668929
He doesn't pull any punches either, does he? Some of his remarks are brutally direct.
All those who think a vaccine is going to magically free us from bondage are going to be in for a massive shock.
(Yes, I know it's a typo, but it's epic!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?