Jump to content

The New Condem Government


bickster

Recommended Posts

As Bicks says, it isn't harsh at all.  Police lying to fit somebody up should be treated extremely seriously.  Doesn't matter who they're doing it to*, it's tantamount to fraud and a custodial sentence is the right outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

*I'd make an exception for Tony Blair**

 

 

**Not really

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure if right thread, but one of the plebgate cops has just been sentenced to a year inside. The guy who lied about being a witness to it. Seems a tad harsh!?

Seriously? You think a year for a policeman perjuring himself is harsh?

I think he got off lightly tbh

 

So do I, perjury  in my opinion by any public servant is a very serious matter, especially when acting under their public oaths of office, not enough public servants are charged with misfeasance in public office, which is a very serious crime carrying a possible life sentence. A crime you could make good arguement, an awful lot of MP's are guilty of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bicks says, it isn't harsh at all.  Police lying to fit somebody up should be treated extremely seriously.  Doesn't matter who they're doing it to*, it's tantamount to fraud and a custodial sentence is the right outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

*I'd make an exception for Tony Blair**

 

 

**Not really

No need to stitch Tony B(liar) up, he's guilty of so many crimes already, unfortunately nobody seems to have the balls to hold him to account for his many crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charge wasn't perjury, it was misconduct in public office.

 

I would expect the judge to take into account the job he held, and to see his act as utterly undermining trust.  It doesn't strike me as especially harsh, nor as revenge for lying about a Cabinet Minister per se, though the fact of the victim being a Cabinet Minister is relevant since that was part of the group of people the officer's job might include protecting.  So it's not about doing him for lying about Mitchell personally or the consequences for Mitchell, but more a case that lying about someone his job requires him to safeguard exacerbates the breach of trust involved.  It's the consequences of the policeman's act on the office he held which the law is aimed at here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charge wasn't perjury, it was misconduct in public office.

 

I would expect the judge to take into account the job he held, and to see his act as utterly undermining trust.  It doesn't strike me as especially harsh, nor as revenge for lying about a Cabinet Minister per se, though the fact of the victim being a Cabinet Minister is relevant since that was part of the group of people the officer's job might include protecting.  So it's not about doing him for lying about Mitchell personally or the consequences for Mitchell, but more a case that lying about someone his job requires him to safeguard exacerbates the breach of trust involved.  It's the consequences of the policeman's act on the office he held which the law is aimed at here.

so as I said before this can carry a life sentence, misconduct in public office is misfeasance in public office by another name , maybe a year isn't as harsh as some people think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the Tories 'kind of' got elected. And with a message of being a party with environmental awareness that just a few years in the 'green crap' is off the agenda.

With the south west being under water and fracking ploughing ahead Cameron might want to think again about his savage cuts to the Environment agency budget.

Edited by Kingfisher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Somerset levels thing is a bit of a mystery to me.

 

The media are treating it as if it's Katrina and that this sparsely populated area is New Orleans.

 

The few people who live there will be getting huge amounts of subsidy per head already and they are demanding more.

 

They are all middle-class Tory voters and it seems that their outrage is based upon their prejudice that cuts are not supposed to affect people like them. 

 

Can anyone explain why these people should be considered a special case?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea of the demographics effected, but, the farming industry that seems to be most affected by it needs to take a look at itself. Firstly farming on reclaimed land? Secondly upland farmers are up in arms if they're told to turn their grazing fields into rain absorbing fauna. The government can't tackle climate change itself, but it can make a stand and hope others follow...it isn't. At the same time it's cutting the EA's budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea of the demographics effected, but, the farming industry that seems to be most affected by it needs to take a look at itself. Firstly farming on reclaimed land? Secondly upland farmers are up in arms if they're told to turn their grazing fields into rain absorbing fauna. The government can't tackle climate change itself, but it can make a stand and hope others follow...it isn't. At the same time it's cutting the EA's budget.

 

Personally, I think, that if we are to accept that climate change is real, and all parties seem to agree that it is, then it would seem more logical for the UK to spend the £85bn it now spends on trying to combat climate change, which seems utterly futile given the policies in the USA, China and India, on making provision to protect against the consequences of climate change.

 

I just think that a country which represents 0.9% of the global population, spending so much on investments which will yield no actual gains, is just a vanity project, which arises from our nation's exaggerated view of it's place in the world.

 

Of course, as long as we belong to the EU, we will never be free to make such choices, but at least hypothetically, it seems more logical than the present determination to feel morally superior by pissing in the wind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should but most people don't care. Environmentalism went out the window when the banks bust. It simply isn't a vote winner, and green businesses don't have the money or influence to out-lobby Big Energy.

 

We're getting fracking and after that, who knows. Politicians no longer think beyond the next parliamment, nor do a great deal of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem as I see it, is that I can't change enough light bulbs in my house, or wear enough jumpers instead of flicking on the heating to compensate for yesterday's Olympic fireworks display, or for that matter the one in London on New Year's Eve, or the next Grand Prix or one missile attack on something or other. If world governments aren't taking it seriously yet, why should I?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem as I see it, is that I can't change enough light bulbs in my house, or wear enough jumpers instead of flicking on the heating to compensate for yesterday's Olympic fireworks display, or for that matter the one in London on New Year's Eve, or the next Grand Prix or one missile attack on something or other. If world governments aren't taking it seriously yet, why should I?

 

The propaganda always seems to support the status quo and they never present the moral obligation in proportion to how responsible consumers are.

 

So we are all given the same guilt trip and the responsibility of those just managing to heat a semi, is presented as exactly the same as the millionaire with ten bedrooms and a swimming pool to heat.

 

This a regressive distribution of the moral burden. 

 

It can't help but get on one's tits and right up one's shonker.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Ill health, is a healthy profit for someone else as the NHS is silently privatised.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

Did anybody see the Daily Politics interview Andrew Neil did with a GP the other week. When she brought this up, he replied that he didn't believe it to be true and pushed her to explain where she got the information. The GP gave a very clear respected source for her information, and Neil basically said he didn't believe to which another guest replied 'you cant deny it just because you don't like it'. He dismissed this criticism.

This was the absolute turning point for me. They've lost my licence fee. BBC is overtly right wing, but their politics presenters should at least try to be impartial, to at least give a vail of even handedness, we pay their wages. Neil absolutely crossed that line, it was like watching a fox news interview. He is not on the Murdoch payroll and I'm not paying his wage to spout right wing propaganda.

I wish I could find this clip on youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â