Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

8 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Have you not read the report? 

 

This case was in no way as simple as 'leaving a child unattended'.

Take away the previous convictions, comments apparently made by the bloke and his attitude and what's left is leaving a child unattended and that child coming to harm. I'm struggling to see a difference between that and say, leaving your kids in an unlocked room while you go to a tapas bar down the road.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Take away the previous convictions, comments apparently made by the bloke and his attitude and what's left is leaving a child unattended and that child coming to harm. I'm struggling to see a difference between that and say, leaving your kids in an unlocked room while you go to a tapas bar down the road.

I don’t think there is an awful lot of difference tbh, both are completely neglectful acts that have brought harm. I’d like to think though, had the Mccanns done that in this country, they would have been charged. Wishful thinking maybe.

[Alf Bentley]

12 hours ago, MattP said:

Will be, leaves a position in the cabinet for a prominent high profile remainer as well.

 

Will Green necessarily be replaced by a prominent Remainer, or even fully replaced at all?

 

I'd guess that the Tory Brexiteers will feel that their noses have been put out of joint by the Soft Brexit content of the Phase I deal (on paper, might not turn out like that in practice after Phases II & III).

So, would they be happy about another clear Remainer being slotted in....not sure who, if anyone, has the status to fill that role, anyway. Maybe Amber Rudd to take Green's position in a reshuffle, with a more Brexity person as Home Sec?

 

Alternatively, she has no absolute need to fill the position of First Secretary of State. Maybe she could appoint a more junior Minister for the Cabinet Office and rely on advisers and allies on committees?

 

8 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

You assume that the cabinet know what they want to do strategically... they’ve only had one meeting on it so far!

 

 

On the contrary, I assume that the cabinet DOESN'T know what it wants strategically. I assume that it's split down the middle and has agreed an uneasy truce so far - a truce that will surely splinter during Phase II & III negotiations?

 

I was referring to Theresa May individually. Maybe she's flying by the seat of her pants, but not entirely, I'd assume. I imagine that she has some idea of the strategy she's trying to follow (keep the Brexiteers on board long enough to tie them into a Soft Brexit deal in the short-term? See what sort of deal is available and what the public mood is before deciding between Soft and Hard? She won't be able to stay on the fence).

 

I might be wrong, but I'd guess that most of May's cabinet colleagues are unsure what May's strategic preference is - but that Green is one of the few who does have a good idea.

[Guest]

All very interesting. One of the worst deals ever made. By the same government that are negotiating the most important deal in our history.

 

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Will Green necessarily be replaced by a prominent Remainer, or even fully replaced at all?

 

I'd guess that the Tory Brexiteers will feel that their noses have been put out of joint by the Soft Brexit content of the Phase I deal (on paper, might not turn out like that in practice after Phases II & III).

So, would they be happy about another clear Remainer being slotted in....not sure who, if anyone, has the status to fill that role, anyway. Maybe Amber Rudd to take Green's position in a reshuffle, with a more Brexity person as Home Sec?

 

Alternatively, she has no absolute need to fill the position of First Secretary of State. Maybe she could appoint a more junior Minister for the Cabinet Office and rely on advisers and allies on committees?

Jeremy Hunt is the one being tipped for it, although the journos seem to be as clueless as the rest of us.

[Guest MattP]

Anyone got any idea why Labour voted against the cut in Stamp Duty?

 

Same thing was in their manifesto just six months ago, doesn't make sense.

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

Jeremy Hunt is the one being tipped for it, although the journos seem to be as clueless as the rest of us.

 

He's been in the cabinet a long time, so presumably has a wide-ranging awareness of policy issues. He was also a Remainer, but a quiet one like May, wasn't he?

Those qualities would suit, but it would be a strange time to appoint a new Health Secretary, possibly facing a winter beds crisis in their first days in the job....

If May does a more extensive reshuffle, as some expect, I suppose she could shift an experienced minister to the NHS and bring a newby into a less prominent position.

 

I always remember Hunt for that weird interview he did with Newsnight a year or two back, when he insisted on standing up (so that he could tower over the interviewer, presumably, as he's very tall).

He came across like someone on the verge of a breakdown....not the ideal profile for someone in such a high-pressure job.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

Anyone got any idea why Labour voted against the cut in Stamp Duty?

 

Same thing was in their manifesto just six months ago, doesn't make sense.

Can only assume that they would want to see it implemented as part of a package of measures to improve access to housing. On its own its a damp squib and isnt likely to have a positive effect. Can only speculate.

[SMX11]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

All very interesting. One of the worst deals ever made. By the same government that are negotiating the most important deal in our history.

 

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Thought it was the previous regime that brokered that 'boondoggle'?

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Anyone got any idea why Labour voted against the cut in Stamp Duty?

 

Same thing was in their manifesto just six months ago, doesn't make sense.

Because they're a bunch of hypocrites?

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

The police are driving Smart cars, a man in a white coat is 3D printing dildos and another is watching Roxxi get blacked on his VR headset, which he is wearing upside down. Maybe this Damien Green’s utopia?

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Can only assume that they would want to see it implemented as part of a package of measures to improve access to housing. On its own its a damp squib and isnt likely to have a positive effect. Can only speculate.

That's not really a reason to vote down one of your own policies though is it? It doesn't make sense at all. I can only assume they are voting against their own manifesto now just because they want to try and oppose the government on whatever they do.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

That's not really a reason to vote down one of your own policies though is it? It doesn't make sense at all. I can only assume they are voting against their own manifesto now just because they want to try and oppose the government on whatever they do.

I think it's more likely that there's something in the detail. It doesn't make sense to leave yourself open to that attack - particularly given they'd expect it based on the Tories falsifying such attacks over the last few months anyway.

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Anyone got any idea why Labour voted against the cut in Stamp Duty?

 

Same thing was in their manifesto just six months ago, doesn't make sense.

Fake news, Tory lies, project fear etc

 

There was absolutely nothing about stamp duty on property purchases in the 2017 labour manifesto.

 

Maybe you lot should actually give it a read sometime instead of relying on your evidently inaccurate current sources of information.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Take away the previous convictions, 1.) comments apparently made by the bloke and 2.) his attitude and what's left is leaving a child unattended and that child coming to harm. I'm struggling to see a difference between that and say, leaving your kids in an unlocked room while you go to a tapas bar down the road.

You're leaving out two important factors there! I've only not included 'previous convictions' given in a jury trial these are not usually allowed to be taken into account. 

 

This part of the BBC's report is also pretty damning in this particular case;

 

Quote

 

They had become involved with Charlie when he was 14 months old and put a child protection plan in place for him.

Mary Prior QC, prosecuting, said Smith "had a status of being a risk to children", but there was no evidence of Charlie having come to harm when the plan became effective.

 

 

And if you're still not convinced this case is at least a little different to the one I believe you are comparing it to, try reading the Birmingham Mail's report which provides us with some more details;

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/charlie-dunn-death-stepfather-guilty-13998747 (I've picked out the significant parts below)

 

Quote

The jury had heard how a group of other children pulled Charlie from a lagoon after Smith was allegedly seen smoking and heard saying: “For f***’s sake, we’re ready to go. I don’t know where he f****** is.”

 

Jurors heard Charlie was found in a 1.4-metre deep lagoon at Bosworth Water Park in Leicestershire in July last year.

 

It can now be reported that Smith admitted witness intimidation in connection with another incident relating to Charlie, prior to the trial.

 

Dunn also pleaded guilty to a second charge of neglect in relation to another youngster, who cannot be named, after an incident in the summer of 2015.

 

Opening the Crown’s case on November 30, prosecutor Mary Prior QC had said Charlie, who could not swim, had been “left alone in a busy park at five years old in circumstances where there was a clear and obvious risk that he might come to very serious harm leading to his death”.

 

She said Dunn and Smith, of Caledonian, Glascote Heath, Tamworth, had shown “ingrained and entrenched indifference”, adding: “This case is not about parents turning their back for a minute whilst a tragedy occurs.

 

“We don’t prosecute parents for unavoidable tragedies, nor do we expect perfection in parenting.

 

“This is a gross failure to supervise not for seconds, and not for a few minutes, but for protracted periods of time in circumstances where the child was exposed to danger.”

“Witness testimony showed that Charlie was left alone on numerous occasions, despite him not being able to swim."

 

Point made? 

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

You're leaving out two important factors there! I've only not included 'previous convictions' given in a jury trial these are not usually allowed to be taken into account. 

 

This part of the BBC's report is also pretty damning in this particular case;

 

 

And if you're still not convinced this case is at least a little different to the one I believe you are comparing it to, try reading the Birmingham Mail's report which provides us with some more details;

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/charlie-dunn-death-stepfather-guilty-13998747 (I've picked out the significant parts below)

 

 

Point made? 

Not for me, sorry. Either leaving your child unattended in a situation where they could come to harm leaves you open to a charge of manslaughter or it doesn’t. The fact that the bloke appears to be a bit of a twat with a bad attitude is irrelevant. Being a twat and having a bad attitude isn’t a crime.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Jeremy Hunt is the one being tipped for it, although the journos seem to be as clueless as the rest of us.

 

Journo's can only go on what's been leaked to them from inside.

 

I'm sure I even read somewhere that Hunt is potentially seen in some Conservative circles as a future leader - which is astonishing as I can't see the national public as a whole warming to him enough to be an election winning Prime Minister. I'd dare to argue, even Gove has more redeeming qualities and more favourable public office history than Hunt? 

 

The other thing I ponder is why would Hunt want to jump from Health now? 

[Kopfkino]

24 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Fake news, Tory lies, project fear etc

 

There was absolutely nothing about stamp duty on property purchases in the 2017 labour manifesto.

 

Maybe you lot should actually give it a read sometime instead of relying on your evidently inaccurate current sources of information.

 

@MattP

I think you might be right about it all being a some Trump-like cult. Fake news

 

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Housing-Mini-Manifesto.pdf

"As a down-payment on this commitment we will cut stamp duty to zero for first-time buyers buying their first home up to a maximum value of £330,000"

 

Or Corbyn's post-budget words http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-response-2017-autumn-11566554

"We back the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers because it was another Labour policy at the election"

 

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

@MattP

I think you might be right about it all being a some Trump-like cult. Fake news

 

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Housing-Mini-Manifesto.pdf

"As a down-payment on this commitment we will cut stamp duty to zero for first-time buyers buying their first home up to a maximum value of £330,000"

 

Or Corbyn's post-budget words http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-response-2017-autumn-11566554

"We back the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers because it was another Labour policy at the election"

 

Neither of those documents are Labour's 2017 manifesto.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Neither of those documents are Labour's 2017 manifesto.

 

Oh so you are just being finicky about Matt's exact wording  

 

@MattP

The answer is they are going to oppose for opposition's sake in a desperate grab at power having hit a glass ceiling. Problem is they fail to realise that whilst Engels and Marx sit opposite the sitting government, they're not getting close.

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Neither of those documents are Labour's 2017 manifesto.

The link actually says Housing-Mini-Manifesto.

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

Oh so you are just being finicky about Matt's exact wording  

 

@MattP

The answer is they are going to oppose for opposition's sake in a desperate grab at power having hit a glass ceiling. Problem is they fail to realise that whilst Engels and Marx sit opposite the sitting government, they're not getting close.

 

When somebody claims something was in a manifesto and it wasn't, yeah I think it's fair to pull them up on it. 

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The link actually says Housing-Mini-Manifesto.

I know, I can read too. It isn't Labour's 2017 manifesto.

 

Actually the policy written in that document is given a two year time limit, whereas I believe the Tories haven't put a time limit on it, so maybe that's why labour voted against the Tory version.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Not for me, sorry. Either leaving your child unattended in a situation where they could come to harm leaves you open to a charge of manslaughter or it doesn’t. The fact that the bloke appears to be a bit of a twat with a bad attitude is irrelevant. Being a twat and having a bad attitude isn’t a crime.

 

Ok, one more go, because you're ignoring key factors in this case and using your strong opinion on a different matter to cloud judgement. There is a narrow similarity between the two cases, but there are stark differences in that;

• In this case we have a history of questionable behaviour towards children under his care
• The evident lack of concern shown is an additional damning factor
• There is a big difference to leaving a child unattended near a very real hazard, where there are clear warning signs - to that of leaving a child unattended in what may have seemed to be a reasonably secure room. Yes both are foolish acts, but its the bit I've highlighted that provides both the clear public interest in pursing a prosecution in this case and the increased likelihood of securing a conviction (key elements which go towards defining whether charges are brought and a case makes it to trial)
• Being a twat and having a bad attitude when you are a parent or guardian, meaning you have a duty of care, is a crime should those qualities result in a child coming to harm when under your care. 
• In this case, we know a child has come to harm and ultimately lost his life. In the other, we don't (another massive factor).

The other thing you might wish to consider is whether someone reading your comments might take it that you are down playing the disgusting and serious nature of the crimes on show in the Charlie Dunn case - rather than advocating that the McCann's should be being prosecuted.