Jump to content
Leicester_Loyal

The Politics Thread 2020

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

We have a duty of care to prisoners to look after them, unpleasant as that may seem in some cases.

She apparently proposed the border closure last year but ultimately it is not her decision.

Police being idiots is not exactly her direct responsibility is it?

But she continues to stand on these platforms and the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction and thats my point. 
 

If there was ever a time to get tough on the border the past year was it, if they aren’t going to do it when the whole country is under threat are they ever going to do it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dames said:

But she continues to stand on these platforms and the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction and thats my point. 
If there was ever a time to get tough on the border the past year was it, if they aren’t going to do it when the whole country is under threat are they ever going to do it? 

You are mixing crime and punishment and Covid response no?  I think like most of the current cabinet Patel is a bit lightweight tbh, but not sure any of the items you mentioned show that really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dames said:

I don’t know how Priti Patel can continue to be taken seriously anymore.

 

She swore to be tough on crime and immigration yet we’ve got convicted nonces getting vaccines ahead of regular hard working people and the borders still haven’t been closed despite being nearly a year into a global pandemic. Throw in the missing arrest records one wonders how can she or the Conservative party be trusted to protect this country. 

The point of the vaccine is to first and foremost vaccinate the most vulnerable people, be it for age or underlying health conditions. This is to try and take strain off the NHS. Doctors don't look at you criminal record as you are wheeled through the hospital door, they treat everyone. So if a convicted nonce, I assume it Glitter you're referring to, falls into that category then quite rightly they should be vaccinated to lessen then chance they'll end up in hospital and putting pressure on the NHS.

 

But yeah, other than that, Priti is priti shite.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are mixing crime and punishment and Covid response no?  I think like most of the current cabinet Patel is a bit lightweight tbh, but not sure any of the items you mentioned show that really.

It all links together. Patel, like many of the current cabinet were ardent Brexiteers and the biggest perceived benefit of Brexit was regaining control of our laws and borders. To be tougher on crime and have more control who’s coming into Britain. The majority of people who voted for Brexit those two things were very high on the list of reasons. 
 

So Brexit finally happens, the Conservative Party and cabinet take control back of our Country and Laws etc but then comes along Covid, the biggest threat to our Country in peacetime for over 100 years. The perfect excuse to tighten control of the borders with little to no resistance from left leaning politicians or commentators and what do Patel and the Conservative party do? Absolutely nothing. Our borders have pretty much remained a free for all throughout the entire pandemic. People importing a virus which has the potential to be deadly and a Government that campaigned heavily on mimicking Australia style border controls has done nothing but expose the people of Britian. 
 

My point is that in terms of this, it was the perfect excuse to tighten the border and controls with very little resistance and they’ve done nothing.

 

Then add in to that that convicted nonces are being vaccinated, criminal records being lost, people flouting the rules and restrictions up and down the country with very little consequence. Its just ineptitude of the highest order and I don’t know how they can be taken seriously any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

The point of the vaccine is to first and foremost vaccinate the most vulnerable people, be it for age or underlying health conditions. This is to try and take strain off the NHS. Doctors don't look at you criminal record as you are wheeled through the hospital door, they treat everyone. So if a convicted nonce, I assume it Glitter you're referring to, falls into that category then quite rightly they should be vaccinated to lessen then chance they'll end up in hospital and putting pressure on the NHS.

 

But yeah, other than that, Priti is priti shite.

It still doesn’t look good when most of Britain is on house arrest. Most of us are making sacrifices that we shouldn't ever be making in a free country such as ours and to see something like this is a kick in the teeth.
 

I’m very left leaning myself but this rubs me up the wrong way for all sorts of reasons, the prison population should not be as high up on the list whilst most of us have our freedoms heavily restricted. Essentially we have to stay on lockdown longer because of people like Glitter and his ilk... 

 

I agree they should be vaccinated, but only when the rest of the country has been let out of lockdown. They committed crimes, some of them unforgivable, they should not be getting priority in this situation. 
 

And for a cabinet minister who promised to be the most tough on crime and has in the past advocated to bring back the death penalty, this is not a good look. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dames said:

It still doesn’t look good when most of Britain is on house arrest. Most of us are making sacrifices that we shouldn't ever be making in a free country such as ours and to see something like this is a kick in the teeth.
 

I’m very left leaning myself but this rubs me up the wrong way for all sorts of reasons, the prison population should not be as high up on the list whilst most of us have our freedoms heavily restricted. Essentially we have to stay on lockdown longer because of people like Glitter and his ilk... 

 

I agree they should be vaccinated, but only when the rest of the country has been let out of lockdown. They committed crimes, some of them unforgivable, they should not be getting priority in this situation. 
 

And for a cabinet minister who promised to be the most tough on crime and has in the past advocated to bring back the death penalty, this is not a good look. 

No, sorry, you're not understanding the issue. If he gets it, he'll likely end up in hospital, and the whole point is to try and stop that happen with so many people. A doctor can't turn him away, so skipping his vaccination, or moving him down the list just increases the chance of the NHS being put under extra unnecessary pressure. In an ideal world he should be left to rot, but we need to get the numbers of people being treated in hospitals down, and the way to do that is to vaccinated the ones most likely to end up in there, regardless of who it is.

 

It's not about Glitter and what he's done, it all about the NHS.

Edited by Facecloth
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No, sorry, you're not understanding the issue. If he gets it, he'll likely end up in hospital, and the whole point is to try and stop that happen with so many people. A doctor can't turn him away, so skipping his vaccination, or moving him down the list just increases the chance of the NHS being put under extra unnecessary pressure. In an ideal world he should be left to rot, but we need to get the numbers of people being treated in hospitals down, and the way to do that is to vaccinated the ones most likely to end up in there, regardless of who it is.

He’s a convicted paedophile on a life sentence. Isolate him until the risk is over, he has no chance of rehabilitation or life outside of prison so there is no harm in putting him and other at risk lifers into an isolation. Its for their safety after all... 

 

There are other ways this could have been handled, it’s just not a good look that a person like this is getting a vaccine and someone else might miss out and potentially die because he was ahead of them on the list. 

Edited by Dames
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dames said:

He’s a convicted paedophile on a life sentence. Isolate him until the risk is over, he has no chance of rehabilitation or life outside of prison so there is no harm in putting him and other at risk lifers into an isolation. Its for their safety after all... 

 

There are other ways this could have been handled, it’s just not a good look that a person like this is getting a vaccine and someone else might miss out and potentially die because he was ahead of them on the list. 

He'll still be in contact with guards etc who are coming in from the outside, so isolation isn't complete isolation. 

 

Like I say it's not about him it's about the NHS. Put it like this, a doctor on TV this morning said whilst she would rather he didn't get it, she agreed that he should have had it when he did due to keeping him out of hospital. So I'll take a doctors view point on it all if that's OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

He'll still be in contact with guards etc who are coming in from the outside, so isolation isn't complete isolation. 

 

Like I say it's not about him it's about the NHS. Put it like this, a doctor on TV this morning said whilst she would rather he didn't get it, she agreed that he should have had it when he did due to keeping him out of hospital. So I'll take a doctors view point on it all if that's OK.

My original point was actually that it makes a home secretary who promised to be tough on crime really weak and really inept.

 

I also stand by my point that it could have been handled differently, its much easier to isolate him and vaccinate the essential staff at the prison, no one would bat an eye at that and it would be the most reasonable solution. 
 

Your point about the NHS is semi valid but whilst he’s taken a vaccine, someone who hasn’t committed heinous crimes against children will have missed out by a day or twonand they could end getting seriously ill and putting strain on the NHS in his place. 
 

Again it all comes back to my original point, for a home sec that promised to be tough on crime, convicted nonces getting vaccine priority over normal people is not a good look. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dames said:

My original point was actually that it makes a home secretary who promised to be tough on crime really weak and really inept.

 

I also stand by my point that it could have been handled differently, its much easier to isolate him and vaccinate the essential staff at the prison, no one would bat an eye at that and it would be the most reasonable solution. 
 

Your point about the NHS is semi valid but whilst he’s taken a vaccine, someone who hasn’t committed heinous crimes against children will have missed out by a day or twonand they could end getting seriously ill and putting strain on the NHS in his place. 
 

Again it all comes back to my original point, for a home sec that promised to be tough on crime, convicted nonces getting vaccine priority over normal people is not a good look. 

No, sorry again, he's getting in the order of when he should be getting it based on age or vulnerability, so nobody "misses out". 

 

It's not about looking good, it's about protecting the NHS by vaccinating the most vulnerable people. Patel has done many shit things in her job, this isn't one of them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dames said:

My original point was actually that it makes a home secretary who promised to be tough on crime really weak and really inept.

 

I also stand by my point that it could have been handled differently, its much easier to isolate him and vaccinate the essential staff at the prison, no one would bat an eye at that and it would be the most reasonable solution. 
 

Your point about the NHS is semi valid but whilst he’s taken a vaccine, someone who hasn’t committed heinous crimes against children will have missed out by a day or twonand they could end getting seriously ill and putting strain on the NHS in his place. 
 

Again it all comes back to my original point, for a home sec that promised to be tough on crime, convicted nonces getting vaccine priority over normal people is not a good look. 

Let's put it this way. Glitter doesn't get vaccinated, and ends up in hospital. A relative of yours who due to get it, but hasn't just due their place on the list contracts it a few weeks later and they are taken to to same hospital as Glitter, but there's no room at all, because Glitter took the last bed. You're relative is then left in a corridor, the hospital just waiting for a place to put them, increasing the chances they don't get proper treatment. That's an even worse look isn't it.

 

Glitter can die for all I care, I won't shed a tear, but sadly doctors can't take that stance, they would have to treat him. Plus the cost of the security staff needed at the hospital, increasing their risk of getting the virus too. Hes a total bellend, but he needs to be vaccinated for everyone's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No, sorry again, he's getting in the order of when he should be getting it based on age or vulnerability, so nobody "misses out". 

 

It's not about looking good, it's about protecting the NHS by vaccinating the most vulnerable people. Patel has done many shit things in her job, this isn't one of them. 

If you strip away all context then you are correct. But in this situation context and nous are definitely needed.

 

The context is that he is a convicted criminal, one of the worst kind and he is getting a vaccine that in reality could have gone to someone more deserving a little bit earlier. If a person ends up dying because they didn’t get their vaccine a day earlier, that is because convicted nonces like Glitter were deemed to be higher priority than them. 


This nous is missing from the Government response because a situation like this was eventually going to come to light and just doesn’t look good. 
 

If Abbott was Home Sec and Corbyn Prime Minister, the press would be going to war with them over this. It might not be Patels fault or her responsibility but when someone promises to be as tough on crime and criminals as her, its not a good look and doesnt inspire

confidence in her abilities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Let's put it this way. Glitter doesn't get vaccinated, and ends up in hospital. A relative of yours who due to get it, but hasn't just due their place on the list contracts it a few weeks later and they are taken to to same hospital as Glitter, but there's no room at all, because Glitter took the last bed. You're relative is then left in a corridor, the hospital just waiting for a place to put them, increasing the chances they don't get proper treatment. That's an even worse look isn't it.

 

Glitter can die for all I care, I won't shed a tear, but sadly doctors can't take that stance, they would have to treat him. Plus the cost of the security staff needed at the hospital, increasing their risk of getting the virus too. Hes a total bellend, but he needs to be vaccinated for everyone's sake.

In worst case scenarios Doctors have to make the choice of who's deserving of treatment and has the better chance of surviving etc. I imagine in that situation Glitter would be the one missing out and moved to palliative care. 
 

It probably actually wouldn’t be a very tough choice or one thats argued with at all in that situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dames said:

In worst case scenarios Doctors have to make the choice of who's deserving of treatment and has the better chance of surviving etc. I imagine in that situation Glitter would be the one missing out and moved to palliative care. 
 

It probably actually wouldn’t be a very tough choice or one thats argued with at all in that situation. 

If Glitter had the better chance of survival he would get the treatment. Doctors wouldn't base their decision on his criminal convictions, nor their personal opinion of him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dames said:

In worst case scenarios Doctors have to make the choice of who's deserving of treatment and has the better chance of surviving etc. I imagine in that situation Glitter would be the one missing out and moved to palliative care. 
 

It probably actually wouldn’t be a very tough choice or one thats argued with at all in that situation. 

What if there's not room to move anyone anywhere? And they won't make decision on who more deserving, they don't look at it like that, he's is no more or less deserving in a drs eyes than anyone else. Also they may decide he is the one needing more treatment and then your relative has complications. We simply don't know. What we do know is if we vaccinate the people most likely to end up in hospital, hospital numbers go down, and he's comes in that category, so he gets vaccinated, simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If Glitter had the better chance of survival he would get the treatment. Doctors wouldn't base their decision on his criminal convictions, nor their personal opinion of him.

 

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

What if there's not room to move anyone anywhere? And they won't make decision on who more deserving, they don't look at it like that, he's is no more or less deserving in a drs eyes than anyone else. Also they may decide he is the one needing more treatment and then your relative has complications. We simply don't know. What we do know is if we vaccinate the people most likely to end up in hospital, hospital numbers go down, and he's comes in that category, so he gets vaccinated, simple as that.

We’re at the point now where the most valid counter point to this discussion is the most extreme of hypothetical situations. 
 

My original point is that this doesn’t look good for a Government or home sec that promised to be tough on crime and criminals. This kind of situation/story you’d expect under a Labour Government, not a right leaning Tory Government and I say that as a Labour voter.

 

Back to a post I made earlier, if this was done under a Corbyn Government, Diane Abbott would be under immense pressure from the press to resign over this. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dames said:

 

We’re at the point now where the most valid counter point to this discussion is the most extreme of hypothetical situations. 
 

My original point is that this doesn’t look good for a Government or home sec that promised to be tough on crime and criminals. This kind of situation/story you’d expect under a Labour Government, not a right leaning Tory Government and I say that as a Labour voter.

 

Back to a post I made earlier, if this was done under a Corbyn Government, Diane Abbott would be under immense pressure from the press to resign over this. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it does look a bad, and I'm no Tory voter. 

 

Take off the he's a paedo specs and look at it in simple terms. Old and vulnerable people are more likely to end up in hospital with this, too many of them are so we need to to vaccinate them to get the numbers down. He's in his late 70, therefore he's vaccinated. This has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the strain on the NHS. It really is that simple. Nothing to do with the person, everything to do with taking pressure of those hero's working in hospitals up and down the land. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dames said:

 

We’re at the point now where the most valid counter point to this discussion is the most extreme of hypothetical situations. 
 

My original point is that this doesn’t look good for a Government or home sec that promised to be tough on crime and criminals. This kind of situation/story you’d expect under a Labour Government, not a right leaning Tory Government and I say that as a Labour voter.

 

Back to a post I made earlier, if this was done under a Corbyn Government, Diane Abbott would be under immense pressure from the press to resign over this. 

 

 

 

 

It's not about them 'trying to look good' though, is it? It's about doing the right thing for the NHS, and if that means vaccinating elderly prisoners to keep them out of our hospitals then that is the correct thing for them to do. I don't think which way you vote comes into it, it's about taking the correct course of action to protect the NHS, and ultimately, the general public. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I don't think it does look a bad, and I'm no Tory voter. 

 

Take off the he's a paedo specs and look at it in simple terms. Old and vulnerable people are more likely to end up in hospital with this, too many of them are so we need to to vaccinate them to get the numbers down. He's in his late 70, therefore he's vaccinated. This has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the strain on the NHS. It really is that simple. Nothing to do with the person, everything to do with taking pressure of those hero's working in hospitals up and down the land. 

But then this comes back to a point I made earlier where these prisoners could be placed into a quarantine bubble until the danger has passed. If our football club can keep young millionaire footballers Covid free then prisons can keep prisoners isolated and covid free, its not as if they are going anywhere is it? If that means isolating them, it means isolating them, they are in prison for a reason and its for their safety. 
 

It just doesn't sit right that nonces and murderers are getting the vaccine ahead of normal people. If anything it points to the fact that the Government has lost control of the prisons among everything else they’ve lost control of... 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dames said:

But then this comes back to a point I made earlier where these prisoners could be placed into a quarantine bubble until the danger has passed. If our football club can keep young millionaire footballers Covid free then prisons can keep prisoners isolated and covid free, its not as if they are going anywhere is it? If that means isolating them, it means isolating them, they are in prison for a reason and its for their safety. 
 

It just doesn't sit right that nonces and murderers are getting the vaccine ahead of normal people. If anything it points to the fact that the Government has lost control of the prisons among everything else they’ve lost control of... 
 

 

Probably just easier and more cost effective to just vaccinate him.

I really don’t understand your criticism at all.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dames said:

But then this comes back to a point I made earlier where these prisoners could be placed into a quarantine bubble until the danger has passed. If our football club can keep young millionaire footballers Covid free then prisons can keep prisoners isolated and covid free, its not as if they are going anywhere is it? If that means isolating them, it means isolating them, they are in prison for a reason and its for their safety. 
 

It just doesn't sit right that nonces and murderers are getting the vaccine ahead of normal people. If anything it points to the fact that the Government has lost control of the prisons among everything else they’ve lost control of... 
 

 

You seem to have ignored the point where I said isolation won't be complete isolation as they'll still have some contact with guards coming in from outside everyday. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Probably just easier and more cost effective to just vaccinate him.

I really don’t understand your criticism at all.

He’s already in prison and that cost isn’t going to change, letting him out his cell on a rota is not going to cost any more is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dames said:

He’s already in prison and that cost isn’t going to change, letting him out his cell on a rota is not going to cost any more is it?

But him ending up in hospital will cost more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

You seem to have ignored the point where I said isolation won't be complete isolation as they'll still have some contact with guards coming in from outside everyday. 

And I made the point that if young millionaire footballers with all the freedom they are allowed can be kept covid secure so can prisoners who aren’t actually allowed out. 
 

There will always be some outside contact but with the correct protocols transmission in environments like that should be extremely low... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...