Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Super

For starters I live in a one bedroom flat. But I think you know that it should not take the people of a nation putting refugees up in their house before the government is required to do anything about it.

For example the government could easily rent 50 premier inns and put the refugees there until they can be given homes.


"Of course it matters. They have a far greater responsibility than the UK does"

So you are saying that because those countries closer to Syria have neglected their responsibilities the UK has the right to do nothing? You are saying that one country doing nothing is sufficient for another country to justify doing nothing?


bob

WTF was that?

[super_realist]

Certain elements of the HRA are completely absurd.

[beninho]

Certain elements of the HRA are completely absurd.

such as?

[super_realist]

Many of the articles relating to criminals.

[SmithersJones]

It's a human rights act, not a 'human's we like and who haven't done anything wrong' act.

[beninho]

Many of the articles relating to criminals.

Because they dont have any rights?

[super_realist]

No, more the misuse of the act to placate prisoners, i.e. voting.

[beninho]

Was it down to placate the prisoners, I don't think any court would issue a decision to keep people happy. I think they issued a decision because a blanket ban on all prisoners is not really fair, and breaches the rights a person has to vote.

[super_realist]

If incarceration is the punishment for certain crimes, it's hardly much more of an inconvenience to have your voting rights withdrawn.

Why should criminals in the penal system have a right to vote anyway?

[beninho]

If incarceration is the punishment for certain crimes, it's hardly much more of an inconvenience to have your voting rights withdrawn.

Why should criminals in the penal system have a right to vote anyway?

I am not sure if they should all have a vote, if you are long term prisoner on life or multiple life sentences you probably should not. If you are in for short term, or due to be released before the next election, then I can see why they should be able to vote.

The ruling stated that the blanket policy is what needs to be looked at, not that everyone should be able to vote.

[SmithersJones]

If incarceration is the punishment for certain crimes, it's hardly much more of an inconvenience to have your voting rights withdrawn.

Why should criminals in the penal system have a right to vote anyway?

Because the purpose of the prison system is to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society, ideally without re-offending. Disenfranchisement goes directly against that, meaning as it does that anyone who is in prison at the time of an election but released during the term of the government elected will have had no say in the election of their own government.

[McLaren]

Super

Why not give the rights to everyone instead of trying to create a subgroup who don't get human rights, which will inevitably include people you wish you had given the rights to.

I would rather all the criminals in the land had human rights than trying trying to remove those rights for criminals and harming someone we didn't mean to.


Also, any chance you could expand on what parts of the HRA is so absurd?

[super_realist]

If incarceration is the punishment for certain crimes, it's hardly much more of an inconvenience to have your voting rights withdrawn.

Why should criminals in the penal system have a right to vote anyway?

Because the purpose of the prison system is to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society, ideally without re-offending. Disenfranchisement goes directly against that, meaning as it does that anyone who is in prison at the time of an election but released during the term of the government elected will have had no say in the election of their own government.

If that's the case, don't lock them up at all, just in case they find it too hard.

[kwinigolfer]

Who cares about Human Rights with regard to those convicted?
Clearly not some of the (dis)United States:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/22/about-200000-convicted-felons-in-virginia-will-now-have-the-right-to-vote-in-november/

[SmithersJones]

If incarceration is the punishment for certain crimes, it's hardly much more of an inconvenience to have your voting rights withdrawn.

Why should criminals in the penal system have a right to vote anyway?

Because the purpose of the prison system is to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society, ideally without re-offending. Disenfranchisement goes directly against that, meaning as it does that anyone who is in prison at the time of an election but released during the term of the government elected will have had no say in the election of their own government.

If that's the case, don't lock them up at all, just in case they find it too hard.

WTF? I'd love to know how you come to that conclusion. It's not a penal system, it's a prison system, intended to keep offenders away from the public for a period while they're rehabilitated. If they behave well they're released before the end of the sentence in the expectation that they'll continue to behave, but they're on licence and can be recalled at any time if they transgress.

If you want a penal system, go live in North Korea where human rights are non-existent.

[McLaren]

Super

What % of people do you think are locked up for properly heinous crimes which would warrant throwing away the key and removing their human rights?

Is it not better to focus on the vast majority of prisoners who have short sentences and whom we might like to integrate back into society in a meaningful way?

As Smithers points out we don't run a purely penal system but one which at least has the goal of rehabilitation.

[super_realist]

Mac, the point is that you don't have to have a blanket voting system for prisonerts. It's not a case of everyone gets the same rights.

As you point out there is a difference between the likes of Peter Sutcliffe and someone in for Tax Evasion. Why would you even want to afford them the same rights just because some wet liberal thinktank can't make a distinction between utter scumbags and someone who has made a mistake?

[super_realist]

Smithers, we DO have a penal system. The Prison System is simply a link in the penal system chain. Policing for example, and the law courts are part of a penal system.

[McLaren]

Mac, the point is that you don't have to have a blanket voting system for prisonerts. It's not a case of everyone gets the same rights.

As you point out there is a difference between the likes of Peter Sutcliffe and someone in for Tax Evasion. Why would you even want to afford them the same rights just because some wet liberal thinktank can't make a distinction between utter scumbags and someone who has made a mistake?

I agree, tax fraudsters should be disenfranchised.

[Davie]

Rehabilitation and reintegration are fine ideals - but why not adopt the following....

If someone gets 5 years, let them out in 5 years IF their behaviour is good. Never mind 2.5 years. Good behaviour earns them a timely release. If they DON'T behave properly, add more time on.

Whether it is tax evasion or rape, if a sentence is x years they should get x years. Anything other than good behaviour should add to it

[SmithersJones]

Rehabilitation and reintegration are fine ideals - but why not adopt the following....

If someone gets 5 years, let them out in 5 years IF their behaviour is good. Never mind 2.5 years. Good behaviour earns them a timely release. If they DON'T behave properly, add more time on.

Whether it is tax evasion or r***, if a sentence is x years they should get x years. Anything other than good behaviour should add to it

That's just semantics Davie. If a judge wants you to serve 5 years he'll give you 10. Besides, if there was no incentive to behave well in order to get early release the system would crumble - jails are stupidly overcrowded as it is.

[pedro]

Looking good for Leicester.

[SmithersJones]

Certainly is - if Spurs had won tonight I'd have said Man Utd would beat Leicester on Sunday, now I think they'll draw or possibly even Leicester will win - what a place to claim the title!

[pedro]

I have nothing against the spurs but they seem to lack something. They did nothing to show they wanted the title.

[kwinigolfer]

Think they got distracted by some of West Brom's nigglers, tried to win skirmishes then forgot about the battle. Didn't seem to press at all in the 2nd half. And now they could be without Alli for a game or two.

[McLaren]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

[SmithersJones]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

[navyblueshorts]

I would say minimum wage was a good one. Creation of the welfare state another. Invading Iraq is starting to increasingly look foolish. As were the PFI deals. The junior doctors contract looks well dodgy, and as for removing free education for nurses when nursing is at an all time low seems particularly short sighted. I suppose things of note worthy of praise would have to be things like wiping ones own arse, remembering to blink, etc...

[MontysMerkin]

Insightful navy.

[McLaren]

Navy, what don't you like about that post?

[navyblueshorts]

Insightful navy.

Absolutely; I try. Perhaps I should have confined the to your quote that:

...I suppose things of note worthy of praise would have to be things like wiping ones own arse, remembering to blink, etc...

The above is just dull. It's traditional to make the sort of remark you did, so I suppose I shouldn't fault you. You seem to be implying you could do a better job - go on then, get to it.

[navyblueshorts]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

Pretty good Mac, although I'm not entirely sure that but for the ECHR, we'd actively have slavery etc in the U.K.

[McLaren]

Navy

Would you agree you would rather the ECHR had the final say on your rights and freedoms compared something drawn up by the current Torie government?

[MontysMerkin]

I apologise that it doesn't reach the intellectual heights of

[super_realist]

Navy

Would you agree you would rather the ECHR had the final say on your rights and freedoms compared something drawn up by the current Torie government?

What difference would it make who wrote it up Mac?

[navyblueshorts]

I apologise that it doesn't reach the intellectual heights of

No worries. Apology accepted .

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Would you agree you would rather the ECHR had the final say on your rights and freedoms compared something drawn up by the current TorieTory government?

A bit simplistic to phrase it like that don't you think? Will they be in power after the next GE? Would all their current MPs support a controversial rights Bill? Do you actually think all the existing Tories are evil to the extent they'd actively draft something they knew to be detrimental? Do you think the Lords would simply wave a controversial Commons Bill through with no comment? In this era of focus-group politicians/politics, do you think there wouldn't be any public influence over a controversial Bill between Green paper stage and statute?

Removing your clear Tory antipathy, I would indeed agree that a body representing lots (how many is it currently?) of countries of the EU is probably more likely to come to balanced decisions re. things like basic human rights. The U.K. should be engaging and influencing that process within the E.U. i.e. making an argument that others would see as the right thing to be done in whatever situation.

[super_realist]

Navy, Mac is one of those people who simply has to object to Tories because they're the Tories using Thatcher as a justification even although he was probably not even born at the time, nor could he probably explain why he thinks anything is worse under a Tory govt, than a Labour one. He seeks a utopia, without realising it isn't possible or realistic.

[McLaren]

I guess the rights of children would be badly damaged if the Tories were to come up wither their own rights bill.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-mps-voted-on-whether-to-accept-3000-unaccompanied-syrian-child-refugees-who-travelled-to-europe-a7001016.html

(Navy/super - I believe the Tories (and UKIP?) are the only people who want to scrap the human rights act?. SO really it is up to them to replace it, if they even bother to replace it)

[super_realist]

Why would that be, were Tories never children? Or do Tories not have children?

[MontysMerkin]

Navy, Mac is one of those people who simply has to object to Tories because they're the Tories using Thatcher as a justification even although he was probably not even born at the time, nor could he probably explain why he thinks anything is worse under a Tory govt, than a Labour one. He seeks a utopia, without realising it isn't possible or realistic.

I think like most people he just believes that tories support the subjugation of the masses under a small elite. They do this by relying on simple minded souls and those that manage, by luck or otherwise, haul themselves from the mire of the general population. By encouraging people to be self serving they can continue to erode the things that originally make a cohesive nation.

[super_realist]

Navy, Mac is one of those people who simply has to object to Tories because they're the Tories using Thatcher as a justification even although he was probably not even born at the time, nor could he probably explain why he thinks anything is worse under a Tory govt, than a Labour one. He seeks a utopia, without realising it isn't possible or realistic.

I think like most people he just believes that tories support the subjugation of the masses under a small elite. They do this by relying on simple minded souls and those that manage, by luck or otherwise, haul themselves from the mire of the general population. By encouraging people to be self serving they can continue to erode the things that originally make a cohesive nation.    

So no different to any political party.

[MontysMerkin]

It may be worth looking up the term socialism. Or go one further and look up democratic socialism.

[super_realist]

The point being Monty that Mac can't give examples of how he is any better or worse off under any particular party, he just by default slags off the party he thinks he should dislike, whilst ignoring the one he thinks he should like, despite them both being terrible in many respects.

[McLaren]

Super

What does it matter whether I am better off under one part or another? I am lucky enough to be in a socioeconomic group that will pretty much dodge every bullet.

The tories have used policies which have harmed the following groups;

The disabled
NHS workers
NHS patients
people seeking low rent housing
migrants
refugees
the environment
small green businesses
School children
teachers

Need I go on?



Did you read the article which I posted the link for? When you do you will see the disregard the current government has for child refugees. And you want them to construct your rights?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy, Mac is one of those people who simply has to object to Tories because they're the Tories using Thatcher as a justification even although he was probably not even born at the time, nor could he probably explain why he thinks anything is worse under a Tory govt, than a Labour one. He seeks a utopia, without realising it isn't possible or realistic.

I think like most people he just believes that tories support the subjugation of the masses under a small elite. They do this by relying on simple minded souls and those that manage, by luck or otherwise, haul themselves from the mire of the general population. By encouraging people to be self serving they can continue to erode the things that originally make a cohesive nation.    

He (and you) may think so but, if "most people" think that, how is it that the Tories are in a majority Government just now? Don't get me wrong, I'm not Tory by nature, but not all that a Tory politician proposes is, nor all of their MPs are, evil. Likewise, not all on the Left are saints, nor are all their proposals amazing.

[navyblueshorts]

...Did you read the article which I posted the link for?  When you do you will see the disregard the current government has for child refugees.  And you want them to construct your rights?

Mac, that's no "article". It's a dog whistle bit of so-say naming and shaming. As if the Independent (whom I like) have written a balanced piece of media describing the arguments pro and con. That's not a great bit of evidence to support any argument you're trying to make.

[McLaren]

Navy

Please present the arguments against helping child refugees?

[super_realist]

Super

What does it matter whether I am better off under one part or another? I am lucky enough to be in a socioeconomic group that will pretty much dodge every bullet.

The tories have used policies which have harmed the following groups;

The disabled
NHS workers
NHS patients
people seeking low rent housing
migrants
refugees
the environment
small green businesses
School children
teachers

Need I go on?



Did you read the article which I posted the link for?  When you do you will see the disregard the current government has for child refugees.  And you want them to construct your rights?

You could say the same for Labour Mac, almost word for word. So why are you attacking the Tories, and not Labour?
Given you've admitted to having parlous finances before, surely you are affected by these "persecuting" policies?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Please present the arguments against helping child refugees?

I didn't listen to the arguments in the Commons. Unlike your good self, I'm not going to simply jump to conclusions as to why that decision was made. There may have been some very good reasons why the majority chucked that proposal out - I don't know. Go get Hansard and post the text for me eh?
You're also assuming that if Labour (or whomever were in Government), a different decision would have been made and therefore the Tories are evil.

[beninho]

Helping child refugees, who I assume will not have much in the way of documentation and therefore may not be able to confirm Syrian nationality. There is the potential that as some of these are not syrian, maybe they are being trafficked with the aim of getting further family members into the country. 3,000 children, may then mean 6,000 parents and 10,000 siblings, all claiming the right to reside in the UK.

[Sponsored content]