Anything Political

[DJ360 6,801]

To quote myself again:

Quote

 But thankfully only four seats. I'd be surprised if Farage lasts long, when the reality of actually being an MP hits home.. but if he stays, he'll be pretty isolated, which will most likely result in him 'gobbing off' inadvisedly.

 

And, true to form instead of Farage trying to make some sort of positive entry to Parliament,  just couldn't  help himself and launched into an attack on former Speaker John Bercow, who wasn't  there to defend himself.

The Frog faced creep really is beneath contempt.

[Brew 5,528]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

To quote myself again:

 

And, true to form instead of Farage trying to make some sort of positive entry to Parliament,  just couldn't  help himself and launched into an attack on former Speaker John Bercow, who wasn't  there to defend himself.

 

I listened to his maiden speech to a crowded house and it was an example of playing to the gallery. He spoke clearly without histrionics or refereeing to any notes.

A smidge of self-deprecation followed by blatant suck up before unnecessarily assailing Bercow.

 

Bercow, in my opinion was an excellent in the role of speaker, not perfect but better than those I can remember and at least gave back benchers a decent crack of the whip. Hoyle, again in my opinion is a bit of a non-entity.

 

On the whole Farage was subdued, polite, desperately trying to ingratiate himself and be a 'proper' MP.

 

Move along now, nothing to see here,,,

[Brew 5,528]

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

All of the Tories I've seen on the telly since the election are just vacuous creeps. They apologise for not delivering,

Are they vacuous or following a careful line? With a potential leadership race in the offing maybe we should call it treading lightly, not nailing their colours to the mast in case the wind changes direction.  There is undoubtedly manoeuvring and soundings being taken, even a cat fight between Braverman and Badenoch.

Perhaps they don't want to place their bets before the riders are declared.

 

Reading the Telegraph there is a poll where Farage, though not as yet eligible, is clear leader among the readers in the race for the tory top job... in the Telegraph!

 

The bookies make Badenoch favourite with Jenrick second.

[DJ360 6,801]

Let's say they are 'behaving vacuously'. My comment wasn't about the Leadership, but the way they see their failure in terms of what they 'didn't deliver', (probably alluding to Immigration Control, Economic Growth etc.) rather than as a result of what they DID deliver.. Brexit Chaos, Political Chaos, Economic Chaos, Crumbling Infrastructure etc..all summed up as 'Broken Britain'.  They seem utterly oblivious.

 

I wouldn't have thought most of the ones I'm talking about were leadership contenders, just the typical sort of anonymous Tory 'Grunts' that get trotted out for The Daily Politics, Newsnight etc. That subject to my earlier comment about someone coming ..as it were..'out of left field..'

Of course there are manouvreings..'wars and rumours of wars'.. that's to be expected

 

I've not personally heard what Badenoch has to say.  Braverman is still droning on about immigration.. 'woke conspiracies' and other fantasies while dribbling out Crocodile Tears.  Also, the Tories have just about managed women leaders when it suited.. but Black women?

 

10 hours ago, Brew said:

There is undoubtedly manoeuvreing and soundings being taken, even a cat fight between Braverman and Badenoch.

 

Of course.. but I really don't think they'll get the job. 

 

10 hours ago, Brew said:

Reading the Telegraph there is a poll where Farage, though not as yet eligible, is clear leader among the readers in the race for the tory top job... in the Telegraph!

 

Which says more about a lot of 'Torygraph' readers, than it does about Farage... or the Telegraph.  Of course we know the Telegraph is a Tory paper, but its readership? Present company excepted.. there are an awful lot of 'Little England Harrumphers' among them.

 

10 hours ago, Brew said:

The bookies make Badenoch favourite with Jenrick second.

 

In that fight I suspect that Jenrick would win hands down, simply by not being Black. 

But.. I can't emphasise enough what a horrible person he is. Behind that affected  'soft spoken Tory Boy' image there lurks a scheming, manipulative and deeply dishonest character whose career is a litany of rule breaking, personal profiteering, graft, sleaze etc etc. I'm surprised he's managed to stay out of gaol. By his 'Al Capone' standards..anything alleged about Angela Rayner would be more in the league of a Juvenile Misdemeanour.. yet attracts much more bile in the Right Wing Press.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jenrick

 

FWIW, I saw Rees-Mogg on Newsnight last night, being typically slimy, claiming that the Tories need to stay silent and have a period of 'reflection', but at the same time making some very sly, borderline 'subliminal' digs at Labour.  He's another totally amoral creep.

Surprisingly, they had Blair on a link and he astounded me by saying that Starmer needs to avoid engaging with 'wokery'. He explained himself as meaning that Starmer should steer a sensible 'central route' through controversial issues such as 'trans rights' etc. I'd probably agree, but for Blair to even use the term wokery, is shocking.

[DJ360 6,801]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

A smidge of self-deprecation followed by blatant suck up before unnecessarily assailing Bercow.

 

Bercow, in my opinion was an excellent in the role of speaker, not perfect but better than those I can remember and at least gave back benchers a decent crack of the whip. Hoyle, again in my opinion is a bit of a non-entity.

 

On the whole Farage was subdued, polite, desperately trying to ingratiate himself and be a 'proper' MP.

 

Move along now, nothing to see here,,,

 

I see it very differently.  On Bercow..he wasn't speaking for the benefit of Parliament, but to his Xenophobe/Brexit powerbase. He was trying to revive the idea that Parliament, with the aid of Bercow, deliberately obstructed the 'will of the people' over Brexit.  It's a dangerous path to embark upon, as we both know that vast numbers of unsophisticated Brexiteers genuinely saw Parliament as 'the enemy', along with the Judiciary. We know where that leads.

[Brew 5,528]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I wouldn't have thought most of the ones I'm talking about were leadership contenders, just the typical sort of anonymous Tory 'Grunts' that get trotted out for The Daily Politics, Newsnight etc.

Without knowing who you're referring to I'd tend to agree about not being leadership challengers.

But from a leaders point of view who will they look favourably upon when doling out largesse; the radical and outspoken MP who castigates the Tories for their failures, or those who are ambiguous, malleable and toe the party line?

The old adage about nobody liking a yes man is wrong.

 

Blair is warning Starmer about 'wokery' and PC. His cabinet has an almost 50/50 male/female split, Asian, Black and queer.

Providing they are competent and can do the job then fine, but it they there simply as a token gesture then not so fine.

The only minorities he missed are the disabled, Orientals and a man in a frock. probably only because none were available.

 

On another tack I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Starmer and Reeve keep wittering on about tough and hard decisions. I wonder what they are and who will bear the brunt?

 

 

[DJ360 6,801]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Blair is warning Starmer about 'wokery' and PC. His cabinet has an almost 50/50 male/female split, Asian, Black and queer.

Providing they are competent and can do the job then fine, but it they there simply as a token gesture then not so fine.

 

Starmer had a number of candidates who he chose to block, for pretty slight reasons. I'd imagine that given the 400 or so he has to choose from, and his obvious 'hard headedness', he won't need, or want, to appoint anyone just to look 'liberal'.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

On another tack I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Starmer and Reeve keep wittering on about tough and hard decisions. I wonder what they are and who will bear the brunt?

 

It remains to be seen. Some tax 'loopholes' are mentioned. I doubt he'd do anything to deliberately target the poorest..that's already done via the two child cap. I do think he may borrow more, but only to invest in services or infrastructure, which isn't necessarily inflationary.

 

Whatever he does..the really 'big money' won't suffer, as the 'system' allows them to profit from any situation.

[Brew 5,528]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:08 AM, DJ360 said:

On Bercow..he wasn't speaking for the benefit of Parliament, but to his Xenophobe/Brexit powerbase.

I doubt most will even remember Bercow, I believe he was simply being obsequious in order to ingratiate himself. He played by the rules for a maiden speech so maybe he's trying to reinvent himself and lose the gobsh... reputation.

[DJ360 6,801]

Much talk yesterday of 'Early Prisoner Release'.

 

It seems our prisons are almost full.

 

But before 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' (or the Nottstalgia counterpart ) gets the pale blue Basildon Bond out..

 

-The proposal is to change the current 'convention' of release after serving 50% of sentence, subject to conditions.. to release after 40 or 45% served.

-There was a specific undertaking NOT to release violent offenders, sex offenders or domestic abusers.

 

What do we think?

 

When thinking about this maybe consider the following:

 

-20% of current prisoners are 'On remand' and therefore not (yet) found guilty of any offence. This is due to the backlog in the court system, brought about partly by Covid, but mostly by the last Govt's deliberate cuts in funding, which led to Barrister's Strikes etc. 

 

-Suicides of Remand prisoners are also rising, from 30% of all self inflicted prisoner deaths, to 37%  in a decade.

 

-Let's also not forget that their obsession with Privatisation led the Tories to the disastrous  privatisation of the Probation Service, which although partly re-nationalised since..is still an almighty mess. Another of 'Failing Grayling's triumphs.

Lots of further info here : 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Privatisation+of+Probation&t=newext&atb=v356-1&ia=web

 

-I also recall that the Tories decided to change Probation Service Training.  It used to be a specialism within Social Worker training.  I.E. Degree Level + and rigorous. I don't recall what it became exactly, but de-skilling is a tool  habitually used by Tories to lower required qualifications..and pay.. in public services.

 

-It seems that lots of Women Prisoners are in Gaol for relatively minor offences. This causes huge social problems, and increased strain on Social Services, if they leave children behind..  Also, despite representing only 4% of the prison population. Women represent 29% of all self harming in prison.

 

-Meanwhile some Tory in a typical 'price of everything and value of nothing' rant last night on Newsnight went on endlessly about how it cost £600000 to build a new prison cell.  Frankly, I don't believe that figure, but whatever it is, it's largely irelevant as we need fewer prisoners..not more cells.

 

-Surely we need to find ways in which Prisons can be cleared of those who are really there because of the sort of repeat petty offending which thrives on poverty, unemployment, drug dependence, poor education, alienation etc..?

 

-Even the Tories admit that they have utterly failed on this.

 

--So naturally, the Daily Telegraph, which Jim and I touched on yesterday.. was last night carrying a full front page headline 'Labour Will Release Violent Prisoners'.  Pretty much the exact opposite of what is proposed... but it will appeal to much of the Telegraph's readership. It's still there online, but at least not 'full page'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,801]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

I doubt most will even remember Bercow, I believe he was simply being obsequious in order to ingratiate himself. He played by the rules for a maiden speech so maybe he's trying to reinvent himself and lose the gobsh... reputation.

 

I genuinely don't think he's capable of that.  His whole 'schtick' is rabble rousing, half truth and misdirection. It's all populist cobblers... long on histrionics and short on fact, or solutions..  As I said before he was elected.. he'll be unable to stop himself 'gobbing off'. He couldn't even get through his maiden speech without it...

[Oztalgian 3,436]

11 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Much talk yesterday of 'Early Prisoner Release'.

 

It seems our prisons are almost full.

When our state's prisons were approaching full capacity a now former treasurer said "Rack em, Pack em and Stack em, if that is what it takes to keep our streets safe' He proposed housing two to three prisoners per cell.

Some states here are using shipping containers and converting them to prison cells. Apparently a 40 foot container can hold 36 inmates but in practicality it is half that as regulations say that each prisoner must be allocated  a certain amount of floor space.

[Jill Sparrow 10,452]

52 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

There was a specific undertaking NOT to release violent offenders, sex offenders or domestic abusers.

Was not Colin Pitchfork released a while ago?  Recalled not long afterwards?  Sorry, but such offenders should never see daylight in my opinion.

[DJ360 6,801]

Oz, that's a very stereotypical 'Ozzy' response.  And of course he doesn't ask how many of those 'banged up' actually do represent a threat to public safety.  Don't you think that an increase in offending and prisoner numbers is a reflection of societal failure?  Why has offending increased to the degree that prisons are now full?

 

If we take an extreme example from the past.. in late 18th and early 19th C Britain, no amount of punishment, deportation, hanging for minor offences etc, curbed offending. The only conclusion to be drawn is that people had no choice. Steal or Starve. If you get away with it, you live a bit longer.. If you don't, you risk being hung.. but you'd have died anyway..  Stark choices.

How we deal with offenders is very much a political football  and 'bang 'em up' is an easy way out. How we tackle the problem of offending itself and its causes is a bit more difficult to establish.  Obviously there will always be those who just 'are' criminal, but it seems to me that a child brought up in poverty in an inner city area is more likely to be drawn into petty offending, than a child brought up in a leafy suburb by a comfortably off family. It's clearly more complex than that and there will alays be exceptions, but if we look at trends... 

 

I've just had a look at 'Incarceration Rates' worldwide.  No surprise that rates are higher in dictatorships and flawed democracies, but it's very noticeable that England Scotland and Wales have rates of around 150 per 100000, whereas many EU countries have rates around 100 per 100000 or often very much less.  Oz has around 160 per 100000.

 

 

[DJ360 6,801]

4 minutes ago, Jill Sparrow said:

Was not Colin Pitchfork released a while ago?  Recalled not long afterwards?  Sorry, but such offenders should never see daylight in my opinion.

 

I couldn't agree more Jill.  But, Pitchfork is clearly an irredeemable sex offender and murderer.  Not the sort of petty, or repeat, and non violent offender being identified under the new proposals.

 

Also worth noting that Pitchfork was released (twice?) under a Tory administration which now admits that it totally failed to properly manage Prisons, Probation or the wider Criminal Justice System.

[Brew 5,528]

I said during the campaign Starmer had deliberately ignored the the crisis in the prisons when it came to announcing his polices. Perhaps now we know why and this one of his 'tough decisions' he warned us about.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

20% of current prisoners are 'On remand' and therefore not (yet) found guilty of any offence. This is due to the backlog in the court system,

 

Which means that there is pressure for non-custodial sentences, this will in turn will reduce the effect of prison as a deterrent.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Let's also not forget that their obsession with Privatisation led the Tories to the disastrous  privatisation of the Probation Service, which although partly re-nationalised since..is still an almighty mess

I can't comment. I have no experience of the probation service or its effectiveness in the judicial system.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It seems that lots of Women Prisoners are in Gaol for relatively minor offences. This causes huge social problems, and increased strain on Social Services, if they leave children behind..

 

Define 'relatively minor'. As a victim of car theft x2, motorcycle theft x3, burglary x2 and prolonged anti-social behaviour* (not all at the same location) I would happily see the perpetrators flogged!

What did happen to them? Nothing! I was given a tut tut, a crime number and a threat of arrest if I took the law into my own hands. Anyone not experiencing this type of incident has no conception of the frustration and anger felt.

There may be a consequential effect on social services as you say, but you have not mentioned the outrage and fear of crime felt by the wider community which seems to be passed over and should not be ignored.

*long story but not for here.

 

You mention those on remand with an implication that not yet found guilty means it's somehow wrong. It's not, remand is not done on a whim or just for the hell of it they are remanded for good reasons.

 

The prison cell cost is as you say nonsense, unless it's one of Jenricks mates building it.  

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Surely we need to find ways in which Prisons can be cleared of those who are really there because of the sort of repeat petty offending which thrives on poverty, unemployment, drug dependence, poor education, alienation etc..?

We just release them and tell them to be good boys while we sort something out? They have committed a crime that warrants incarceration, the why and wherefore is another matter and for that there is no easy answer. But slapped wrists and a cosy chat once in a while with a probation office doesn't seem like a solution to me.

 

We can blame the Tories, it's easy and it's true, but Tony Blair's policy of "tough on crime, tough on the cause of crime" put more crimes on the statute books than the sum total of all the Parliaments since the war but failed to tackle the causes or the means to prevent crime.

 

A couple of non-violent crime statistics:

Fraud average sentence = 2 years - present remission means out in 10 months.  Proposed means serving 33 weeks

Theft  average sentence = 10 months - present remission means out in 5 months. Proposed is serving 16 weeks.

 

 

[Jill Sparrow 10,452]

Jon Venables, released in 2001.  Tony Blair's watch?  Labour make mistakes, too, you know.

[Brew 5,528]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

If we take an extreme example from the past.. in late 18th and early 19th C Britain, no amount of punishment, deportation, hanging for minor offences etc, curbed offending.

 

A somewhat specious argument in today's society, none here are starving.

Although there are kids growing up in poor inner-city areas not all of them, in fact I suggest the majority, do not go out thieving or become drug users. The same applies to the majority of the poor. Those living hand to mouth or even those reduced to begging do not necessarily become criminals even though it's understandable if they did. Most courts ask for social reports before sentence and make every effort to discover the reasons behind the crime. The length of sentence reflects this and even those who are suddenly reborn again and repentant are given the benefit of the doubt.

[philmayfield 6,338]

Numerous people with ‘mental health’ problems used to be committed to ‘institutions’ for their own and the public’s safety. Unfortunately there were people in those places who should not have been there (unmarried mothers at one time). ‘Care in the community’ was introduced to take away the stigma of the Victorian Asylums. Those institutions, in the main, no longer exist and people with mental health problems now live amongst us. ‘Care in the community’ was a Thatcherite policy. She wasn’t always right!

The expression ‘mental health’ has now become an excuse for the workshy. When I was running a factory the ‘mental health’ excuse hadn’t been invented and failure to turn up for work on a Monday morning was due to ‘a bad back’. Mainly it was due to drinking out of damp glasses!

[DJ360 6,801]

5 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

She wasn’t always right!

 

She was hardly ever right.

[Jill Sparrow 10,452]

The Victorians promulgated a theory that criminality was, in some way, genetic.  I think that idea has enjoyed something of a revival in certain quarters since the discovery of DNA.  I once worked with a lovely chap who was a very senior bod within Adoption and Fostering. He privately admitted to me one day, after a meeting, that people who adopt very young babies (as many childless couples prefer to do) are taking a huge risk because they have no idea of what genetic propensities the child has and how it will turn out. I was, to use a word I don't care for, gobsmacked to hear him of all people say that. It certainly knocked the nature/nurture debate on the head. He wasn't referring to physical illnesses. He specifically mentioned criminal behaviour.

[Brew 5,528]

 

 

Dr Christian Jarrett, a cognitive neuroscientist wrote:

 

"A couple of years ago, researchers at King’s College London and Imperial College London conducted a systematic review of 24 studies involving thousands of pairs of twins who had been assessed using measures of psychopathy. The researchers concluded that all three aspects of psychopathy are heritable (passed on through the genes inherited from one’s parents) – and that the aspect with the strongest genetic predisposition is the callousness/unemotional element".

 

A child born with a predisposition is not something I've ever believed in or subscribed to, but...

 

 

 

[philmayfield 6,338]

So to make more prison spaces available Softy Starmer is going to release prisoners after serving 40% of their sentence. Does he not realise that these people are criminals who will be free to offend once again, get caught and be back inside? Very few will have been reformed by the system. Not many will find it easy to get a job. In my naivety I once set on an ex con but he was soon back to his thieving ways so I never employed another. Am I missing something in Starmer’s proposal?

[Brew 5,528]

I suspect we are in for a few days reading and listening to howls of protest matched only by the nimby brigade who will try for the high ground with weak excuses to explain why prisoners are better of breaking into your house than sat doing nothing in prison. 

[Jill Sparrow 10,452]

What happened to picking oakum, sewing mailbags and the treadmill?  I believe, at one juncture, the Japanese had the lowest prison population in the world. Japanese prisons were not a place their people wanted to experience twice!

[Rob.L 1,092]

25 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

So to make more prison spaces available Softy Starmer is going to release prisoners after serving 40% of their sentence. Does he not realise that these people are criminals who will be free to offend once again, get caught and be back inside? Very few will have been reformed by the system. Not many will find it easy to get a job. In my naivety I once set on an ex con but he was soon back to his thieving ways so I never employed another. Am I missing something in Starmer’s proposal?

You are indeed missing something. He inherited a sh*tshow.

 

10,000 prisoners already released early between Oct 2023 and June 2024 (before the election). Sunak was planning to release even more had he won the election.

 

And then there is the distinct lack of building of new prisons over the last 14 years despite 16 prisons being closed across England and Wales, and repeated promises by the previous government that they were going to be built (see also 40 new hospitals).