General Election 2015

[aquarius moon]

Life in prison would be a deterrent. Knowing you'll be released in a few years isn't. And the prisoner would be off the streets forever and not be able to offend again.

But a lethal injection? Killing, taking a person's life, approved murder?

How can that be morally right?

(sorry, I know it's off topic but I feel strongly about it)

[robbin]

What on earth is 'the greater good' anyway? and even if a person could distinguish a single 'greater good' from the morass of other subjective opinion, why should they favour it over their own self interest?

One person's perceived greater good is always going to be different to that of another, surely?

[*Bob*]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What on earth is 'the greater good' anyway? and .. why should they favour it over their own self interest?

I'm sure you must have some idea what 'the greater good' might entail, at least as a concept?

As to the second part.. most don't, so it doesn't matter.

[Jeremy]

Not really sure what you're getting at, robbin. By "greater good", I was really referring to the rationale that a state/society might apply to killing an individual as punishment.

[robbin]

Bob, while I take issue with the connotation in your term "'selfish' voters" I agree - the Labour party clearly lost sight of (or didn't care about) the fact that they were not addressing the wishes of voters who would vote based on what they perceived to be the best for them or for their family/loved ones.

On a general note (not a reference to what you said, Bob) I don't think its quite on point to concentrate on people voting only based on how policies would affect themselves directly. I think the majority of people also factor in the interests of their children as well as maybe their parents (so they would be concerned about services affecting the elderly/young even if they themselves were working age). Some of the belly aching from the left seems to over-simplify things - as if people voted completely selfishly with complete disregard for issues such as education, tuition costs, pensions, healthcare. This overlooks the fact that most voters are directly affected by such things and so obviously vote with an eye very much on such services and how they would be affected.

The simple fact is the policies being offered by Labour were no seen to be acceptable. If the left leaning members of Labour keep ignoring reality and retain significant influence they will be in opposition for many more terms, I reckon.

That said, the sight of Ed stood in front of his 'Ed stone, containing that vague patronising guff - looking into the middle distance like a clean shaven Moses in a dark suit, has made be smile so many times, I can't knock him for that. Great value. DC gave us nothing. He didn't even trip off any stage. Very dull.

I just wish they would auction the 'Ed stone off for charity - you could build a new hospital with the proceeds of that sale, I think!

[Loz]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just wish they would auction the 'Ed stone off

> for charity - you could build a new hospital with

> the proceeds of that sale, I think!

Apparently it cost ?30k to make.

[robbin]

Jeremy - I wasn't writing in response to your use of the term. I can quite understand what you were referring to. It was the distinction Bob made to the greater good and self interest that I was addressing.

Of course, we all know what the term means as a general concept, the only point I was making is that it is all very subjective when it comes to voting (I'm not talking about the death penalty). It is not so easily distinguishable from self interest as might first appear - on some issues it might be, others not.

[robbin]

I would bet a significant amount that it has appreciated in value!

[robbin]

Sadly the Ed stone seems to have disappeared.

I wonder if one of the Millibands' kitchens has a new worktop...

[bodsier]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bodsier Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Michael Gove minister of justice..... With

> > cutbacks, dumbing down and forensic science

> being

> > passed down to the police, there inevitably

> will

> > be more miscarriages of justice than ever

> before.

> > If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons

> > will be bulging. I don't think Any party who

> > wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should

> be

> > in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest

> > loss.

>

> Oh Ffs. It was in their manifesto and hardly

> warranted a mention ( including from labour) it

> wasn't law until 2000 and is being replaced by a

> bill of rights which puts ultimate sovereignty on

> human rights wit the UK courts. Stop being such a

> melodramatic twat believing everything you see on

> Social Medis about the fascist Tories. I despair.

??? is it necessary to debase the debate without insults? you seem determined to defend your position, yet you have missed my point entirely......

The problem is putting ultimate sovereignty into British courts, paricularly as they lean so heavily oN Forensic science which is being increasingly led by the police and not by forensic scientists. There is less fabric analysis and more on looking at social networking and computer communications...hence more likelihood of false I criminal ion or people being let off due to insufficient evidence

Steven Lawrence's lawyer himself said

"The worst thing this government could do is abolish the Human Rights Act. The Lawrences could have got justice in 1993 had it been in force at the time by saying we need a public inquiry because there was a right to life," the laywer said.

There was an immediate impact when it came into force in 2000, Khan observed. "I see the next big challenge as defending human rights in this country because without it all the gains we have made and the language that we speak will completely change."

Just because the Tories nor labour didn't mention it it doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning does it? Has the brainwashing had such an amazing effect on people that we can't see past it?

[robbin]

You appear not to have mentioned the Bill of Rights.

Why would a properly drafted Bill of Rights not provide proper protection?

I simply don't follow your third sentence about fabric analysis being reduced in favour of analysis of social networking. How are those two matters related?

[Otta]

Well the Bill of Rights should certainly be offered up and approved before any scrapping is done.

[Otta]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta wrote -

>

> "That was the case until very recently, when a

> poll showed that for the first time ever over 50%

> were against.

>

> I was shocked to hear it, as I'd just assumed

> that a larger majority would be against."

>

>

> I think you are mistaken. That You Gov research

> was the latest in the UK. There is nothing so far

> as I am aware which shows that over 50% are

> against. You Gov says 39% against and that was

> last year. Even the Guardian hasn't second

> guessed that figure in its two major articles

> recently.

Fair enough, I must have heard it wrong or something.

[robbin]

I agree, the final draft Bill of Rights should be in place and considered as part and parcel of any repeal of the Human Rights Act (which incorporates the Convention). I suspect that is what is intended. It would be very odd if one was repealed by Parliament before the other was ready (and I very much doubt that would ever pass - majority or no majority).

Like you Otta, I was a bit surprised by the death penalty figures. It's been so out of the news for the last decade that I think most people don't give the death penalty much thought. I think as the US continues to take 45 minutes to slowly kill people in grisly ways, the public appetite for it here will wane further.

[bodsier]

Forensic scientists use fabric analysis at the scene of a crime and it was used in Stephen Lawrence's case and helped to convict the murderers as well as Soame murder and others. It's a dying skill, they use more mobile, computer analysis now, which although is useful, does not cover all particulars in every case.

I think it's cheaper and relies more on approved Streamlined police forensics and is more likely to increase wrongful convictions as anaysis more subject to police opinion rather than an objective scientific analysis. I believe forensic reliability has been extremely low as a result of this.

Vital aspects of a case can be missed. See my previous post also. Khan would not have taken the case had Lawrence case had it not been for the Human Rights

[robbin]

Eh?

If you think the prosecuting authorities and police no longer concentrate on finding and analysing fabric samples at the scene of a crime (whether or not in favour of checking someone's internet usage) you are seriously mistaken!

Far from being a dying skill, forensic analysis of physical evidence (whether it be fabric or low copy DNA sample analysis) is getting ever more skilful and effective. It is routinely used in courts across the UK. Daily.

I have no idea how any of this relates to the Human Rights Act.

[bodsier]

Robbin that is not true, apparently the focus on fabric analysis has been greatly reduced....Do you acknowledge that there have been cuts in this area? forensics are extremely concerned about the way In Which the police use forensics in criminal cases, and the impact of this in terms of an increase in wrongful convictions? And or people not being convicted due to insufficient evidence.

besides if you wish to discard this fine. However I don't think you can deny the impact that the human rights act had on the Stephen Lawrence case can you?

[robbin]

Sorry, that's making my head hurt.

Out of all the areas of forensics that are routinely used in criminal cases - DNA coding, toxicology, serology (body fluids), ballistics, soil analysis, pollen analysis, entomology (the last three often relating to location analysis) graphology, finger-printing, blood distribution etc. etc. and you obsess about fabric analysis being reduced?

I don't think there has been any decision to reduce forensic analysis of fabric evidence in favour of looking at mobile phones and computers. It obviously depends on each case and what evidence there is. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I just can't see it. I also still can't see the link between fabric analysis and the Human Rights Act. Sorry.

[bodsier]

Robin DNa of blood etc is used but fabric analysis a lot less so.

[Blah Blah]

Me neither Aquarius. Innocent people ARE wrongly convicted and there is no evidence of the death penalty being any kind of deterrent either. I wonder if 'when' polling is carried out makes a difference. i.e would a poll in favour be more likely after the reporting of a heinous crime?

I would support life meaning life though.

[????]

AS an aside - life meaning life is not legal under the HRA nor is not letting prisoners vote.

But anyway, the point is that in the sh1testorm of social media hate regarding the people's choice* (*deliberate fish for' 37% of the poulation aren't the people). This Humans Right Act is being posted up as evidence of the burning of books and a fore runners to Krystalnacht, rather than what it is, a manifesto commitment to create a Bill of Rights that the conservatives thinks work best for the UK.

I don't now if this is right but I do know it will be published, scrutinised, commented on by experts, commented on in the media, debated as part of a political process, and srutinised by the opposition and rightly so they collectively otr inndivudually may persuade me that it's wrong or right.

But I do know that I am really not going to take notice of a bunch of LIVID fuckwits on Social media demonstrsting their lack of any political knowledge in an massive and tedious spate of WE FOOKING HATE THE TORIES

[????]

this is worth thinking about haters

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/some-advice-to-people-angered-by-the-election-add-some-tories-on-facebook/

[Blah Blah]

I think the Tories didn't help with the tone of language they used though. Instead of saying 'ammendments which might mean rewriting from scratch etc' they chose to use the language of the jingoist with 'tear it up'! Live by the sword, die by the sword I'm afraid.

[Louisa]

Blah blah that's what the tories do, they're that kind of party. You wouldn't come across someone from the Green Party eating a rare steak for example, and so on.

Louisa.

[aquarius moon]

Quids,

Why are you getting so angry?

It's all irrelevant now. What's done is done.

I fooking hate the Tories but is anything I feel going to make a difference?

We all disagree. We all have our own opinions. But stress and anger isn't healthy.

Relax and chill out.