Andrew Marr

[Chippy_boy]

We want to simply get back to where the public services and utilities were before thy were decimated by the Tories

I've replied to this already, but just to add.

Tax rates before the privatisations were 30% for the basic rate of tax. That is the sort of level of taxation required to fund a state infrastructure of the type Labour is proposing.

However, they dare not suggest that in the manifesto, because too many people would not vote for it. So they have to LIE and pretend that the same can be delivered and only 5% of people pay more. It is an outright LIE of enormous proportion. Labour accuse the Tories of dishonesty and yet you are happy to overlook this enormous whopper.

No other country has the sort of public services expenditure being promised and at the same time, a basic rate of tax that is that low. To suggest you can have it is fundamentally dishonest.

If Labour were to be more honest and suggest that basic rates of tax would have to go up, ironically more people like me might be inclined to look favourably upon it. It is this persecution of the better off, and downright lying about what they can deliver, which is SO obnoxious.

 

[Magicpole]

They did change the rules but could not change sentences already issued pre 2012. This guy was arrested before then.

They could have altered the circumstances required to qualify for release. Laws are changed and altered all the time. As pointed out by @Ifwecouldjust....... pointed out, they commissioned a report, then didn't act on it. Was that Labours fault too?

 

[George Hannah]

They could have altered the circumstances required to qualify for release. Laws are changed and altered all the time. As pointed out by @Ifwecouldjust....... pointed out, they commissioned a report, then didn't act on it. Was that Labours fault too?

The sentencing terms could not be retrospectively changed for prisoners convicted under earlier legislation. It's a principle of jurisprudence.

 

[BobKowalski]

The sentencing terms could not be retrospectively changed for prisoners convicted under earlier legislation. It's a principle of jurisprudence.

Agreed. No matter the circumstance you abide by what is done is done.

 

[worsleyweb]

Agreed. No matter the circumstance you abide by what is done is done.

So we had to put a sticking plaster over labours fuck up. You are starting to slowly get it.

 

[Bigga]

The sentencing terms could not be retrospectively changed for prisoners convicted under earlier legislation. It's a principle of jurisprudence.

So... Why is the Chief Justice looking at these cases today...?

 

[Chippy_boy]

So... Why is the Chief Justice looking at these cases today...?

Can I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to blame the Tories for every known evil, it might seem just a teeny bit less creepy were you to simply accept that unfortunately shit happens. No-one likes a smart arse trying to be wise after the event.

Unless you can point me towards your posts prior to Friday, encouraging greater investment in our probation services and warning of dire consequences?

 

[BobKowalski]

So we had to put a sticking plaster over labours fuck up. You are starting to slowly get it.

‘Labour bad. Me smash’.

And repeat in all circumstances. Quite remarkable.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

So... Why is the Chief Justice looking at these cases today...?

they will find any little excuse to recall them for breaking parole.

 

[Bigga]

Can I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to blame the Tories for every known evil, it might seem just a teeny bit less creepy were you to simply accept that unfortunately shit happens. No-one likes a smart arse trying to be wise after the event.

Unless you can point me towards your posts prior to Friday, encouraging greater investment in our probation services and warning of dire consequences?

Many of your cohorts have blamed Labour for Friday.

Returning the reality of how cuts have played a big part in this situation.

Noted by very many prominent and independent figures.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Returning the reality of how cuts have played a big part in this situation.

Noted by very many prominent and independent figures.

Of course they have. So what?

We should cut EVERYTHING if it has no impact. Why wouldn't we. Cuts are inevitably "tough choices" and it would not be tough if there was no impact, would it.

Next.

 

[Magicpole]

The sentencing terms could not be retrospectively changed for prisoners convicted under earlier legislation. It's a principle of jurisprudence.

So are you saying if a gov brought a new law to change everything about release it wouldn't affect previous sentences? Even if it's purpose was to try and prevent the tragic situation on Friday and was passed by every MP?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Of course they have. So what?

We should cut EVERYTHING if it has no impact. Why wouldn't we. Cuts are inevitably "tough choices" and it would not be tough if there was no impact, would it.

Next.

I hope you never suffer a disability and are unable to work. If you do however, you’ll find out what tough choices actually mean. And if it’s bad enough for you to go into a care home or adapted living space and you live on your own, that’s your house and any savings you had gone. Theft if it’s Corbyn, tough choices if it’s Johnson.

 

[worsleyweb]

‘Labour bad. Me smash’.

And repeat in all circumstances. Quite remarkable.

Yes pretty much - this labour is a fucking disaster and you well know it. I see you say you are voting Lib Dem.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I hope you never suffer a disability and are unable to work. If you do however, you’ll find out what tough choices actually mean. And if it’s bad enough for you to go into a care home or adapted living space and you live on your own, that’s your house and any savings you had gone. Theft if it’s Corbyn, tough choices if it’s Johnson.

I am not really sure what point you're trying to make. That we do not have limitless money is surely not in doubt? One party recognises this, the other pretends otherwise.

The NHS - even under Labour - doesn't pay for some treatments, not because they are of no efficacy, but because we don't have an infinite drugs budget and we cannot afford it. This is the harsh reality of life. It sucks, I know, but that's the way it is.

 

[Vic]

No, it doesn't. However, Labour (Yvette Cooper) started it.

IMO, it would have been better if the Tories had simply risen above it and said "If Labour want to try to make political capital out of the terrible events of Friday, then they can do so alone and the voters can judge them for it."

Cooper said simply, "Usman Khan was sentenced for serious terror offence in Feb 2012. Thought to be so dangerous by judge he was given IPP sentence to prevent release if still serious threat. Instead he was released 6 yrs later without Parole Board assessment. How cd this be allowed to happen?"

Now if she had said how could Boris Cretin have allowed it you might have a case for saying she started it.

(Seriously, you object to Liar Johnson but use the word cretin?)

 

[Vic]

Banging your head against a wall of ignorance mate.

The way I read your posts is:

1. The cuts have been necessary if undesirable. That the Tories were voted in on that platform shows that the wider - less myopic - members of the public shared that view

2. That - as tends to be always the case - the driver of the requirement for a sustained period of austerity has been the 'largesse' of the previous Labour regime that demonstrated in spades their incompetence in managing the economy.

3. That the worst thing thinkable for the health of the UK's economy and the well-being of future generations is that 'this' Labour leadership could come into power with the policies and ideologies that they have set out and those we can be confident that they will introduce. The damage that they would do this time would take generations to recover from.

4. That with austerity coming to an end there is a chance for significant spending but it has to be rational and controlled - this Labour Party cannot be trusted to find the right balance - just consider the latest ill-thought through bribes of today.

You are challenged by those locked into the myopia and ideologies and they seemingly care nothing for future generations - they are fundamentalists. They are not really assessing and replying to your posts otherwise they would accept the truth and not simply deflect - but they are only interested/capable of spouting their mantras.

And they are disingenuous shit that they are coming out with regarding this terrorist attack is shameless. If services are cut because of austerity and austerity was required due to Labour's time in power - it is obvious that Labour has a big share of responsibility.

Whilst I admire your attempts at explanation to and reasoning with them - I wonder as to why you bother - they are not interested in debate - just wish deride and shout down.

In summary - not worth bothering with

Get off the thread then. (And why is this Marr thread still going? Can we rename it the Boris bottles Neill thread?)

 

[Magicpole]

The sentencing terms could not be retrospectively changed for prisoners convicted under earlier legislation. It's a principle of jurisprudence.

Bawbag on BBC just now saying they have a bill prepared to change early release, so it seems they can and the question remains, why haven't they up until now? They can clearly do it, so the defence of the Tories was just holed beneat the waterline by its glorious leader. He's a veteran lying ****, so he may be lying about actually doing it, but he confirmed that it can be done.

 

[George Hannah]

So are you saying if a gov brought a new law to change everything about release it wouldn't affect previous sentences? Even if it's purpose was to try and prevent the tragic situation on Friday and was passed by every MP?

I think that is the situation in practice, technically Parliament can do anything it wants of course including legislating retrospectively but the precedent is that it won't. @gordondaviesmoustache will know.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think that is the situation in practice, technically Parliament can do anything it wants of course including legislating retrospectively but the precedent is that it won't. @gordondaviesmoustache will know.

It’s precluded by the ECHR and English common law.