General politics discussion thread

[Jonathan Ford]

The only part of that article I disagree with is doctors being fearful of speaking up - they have, and do, but their concerns have clearly not been registered. They have a union but of course cannot strike because they put their patients welfare first. Which is a shame because that short-term compromise of patient welfare would be a drop in the ocean compared to what the government's reforms have in store for us all.

 

Trouble is, doctors are genuinely fearful of their careers if they speak up. The way dissent is generally managed in the NHS is to suspend the dissenter, interview colleagues (pointing out how quickly they could find themselves in the shit too), review records...find the remotest, smallest most trivial piece of shit to pin on them, and use this to destroy careers. Meanwhile, these abusers are without oversight and are generally promoted for their efforts.

 

Take the "jobbygate" scandal; a Scottish junior doctor calls (quite rightly) one of the architects of MTAS (a scheme that has destroyed training for junior doctors) a "fucking shit" on a private forum, and is drummed out of the profession for his trouble.

 

Jobbygate - start reading from the bottom.

[Psygnosis]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...s-Register.html

 

If it was a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl - then sure (Caution instead if reported), but in all other terms I don't agree with that.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Psygnosis

[Loki]

It's not like they AUTOMATICALLY are taken of the sex offenders' register, it's having the right to appeal to be taken off if circumstances have changed. It's not like a judge is going to uphold an appeal from Gary Glitter; it'll be for particular instances, such as the 16 year old boy who doesn't deserve to have the rest of his life tainted. Or the 11 year old kid who's turned himself around in jail and is now a model citizen.

 

Sarah's Law is absolute garbage anyway, it emphasises "stranger danger" as the main cause of child abuse, whereas something like 80+% of sex offences against children are committed by someone they know, and 50% by partners of their mother. So it doesn't really tackle the main issues around abuse at all.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Loki

[David]

It's not like they AUTOMATICALLY are taken of the sex offenders' register, it's having the right to appeal to be taken off if circumstances have changed. It's not like a judge is going to uphold an appeal from Gary Glitter; it'll be for particular instances, such as the 16 year old boy who doesn't deserve to have the rest of his life tainted. Or the 11 year old kid who's turned himself around in jail and is now a model citizen.

Exactly.

 

That won't stop the tabloids trying to scare the general population into thinking that it's all political correctness gone mad etc.

[matbro1984]

The only part of that article I disagree with is doctors being fearful of speaking up - they have, and do, but their concerns have clearly not been registered. They have a union but of course cannot strike because they put their patients welfare first. Which is a shame because that short-term compromise of patient welfare would be a drop in the ocean compared to what the government's reforms have in store for us all.

 

Trouble is, doctors are genuinely fearful of their careers if they speak up. The way dissent is generally managed in the NHS is to suspend the dissenter, interview colleagues (pointing out how quickly they could find themselves in the shit too), review records...find the remotest, smallest most trivial piece of shit to pin on them, and use this to destroy careers. Meanwhile, these abusers are without oversight and are generally promoted for their efforts.

 

Take the "jobbygate" scandal; a Scottish junior doctor calls (quite rightly) one of the architects of MTAS (a scheme that has destroyed training for junior doctors) a "fucking shit" on a private forum, and is drummed out of the profession for his trouble.

 

Jobbygate - start reading from the bottom.

That is utterly disturbing. I must confess, I had not heard about this furore, but if that is how it is handled then perhaps I should advise my wife to restrain herself from making these comments. The way she describes it to me, everyone actually involved in healthcare is in agreement that it's all bullshit, but she doesn't get much interaction with the pen pushers in the offices who, it seems, carry all the real clout.

 

I wonder if I should curb my own venting on public forums too, for fear of such discrimination by proxy.

 

Clearly you are in the know about these things - may I ask what your link to the profession is, if any? Fact is, we should all as taxpayers be outraged at how they're destroying the healthcare system we pay for, but stuff like this is incredibly under-reported in the media. We're all aware of the latest silly stunt from Lady Gaga, or Jordan's latest break-up, and even the intricate speculation over the details of a marriage between two posh people in April. Yet, the stuff that actually matters, that people have a genuine vested interest in, is swept under the carpet.

[David]

We're all aware of the latest silly stunt from Lady Gaga, or Jordan's latest break-up, and even the intricate speculation over the details of a marriage between two posh people in April. Yet, the stuff that actually matters, that people have a genuine vested interest in, is swept under the carpet.

That should come as a surprise to no one.

[SpursRiot2012]

Stunning hypocrisy itt.

Edited February 17, 2011 by SmokeSoapBar

[Loki]

That is utterly disturbing. I must confess, I had not heard about this furore, but if that is how it is handled then perhaps I should advise my wife to restrain herself from making these comments. The way she describes it to me, everyone actually involved in healthcare is in agreement that it's all bullshit, but she doesn't get much interaction with the pen pushers in the offices who, it seems, carry all the real clout.

 

I wonder if I should curb my own venting on public forums too, for fear of such discrimination by proxy.

 

Clearly you are in the know about these things - may I ask what your link to the profession is, if any? Fact is, we should all as taxpayers be outraged at how they're destroying the healthcare system we pay for, but stuff like this is incredibly under-reported in the media. We're all aware of the latest silly stunt from Lady Gaga, or Jordan's latest break-up, and even the intricate speculation over the details of a marriage between two posh people in April. Yet, the stuff that actually matters, that people have a genuine vested interest in, is swept under the carpet.

 

May I suggest you subscribe to Private Eye? That's where all the domestic news the mainstream media don't print gets aired, but unlike internet conspiracy sites they are pretty thorough journalists.

[soretooth]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...s-Register.html

 

If it was a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl - then sure (Caution instead if reported), but in all other terms I don't agree with that.

What a disturbing article. I was particularly appalled by the photo of a sickening sex fiend lurking near a playground. Why can we no longer think of the British Isles without the word "paedoph" in front of them?

[David]

A BBC segment admits that Al Qaeda never existed.

[Loki]

Hardly news, is it? Al Qaeda has always been an ideological umbrella for like-minded jihadists. What Bin Laden and his guys in Pakistan DO do is provide logistical support for independent cells, and hook them up with sponsors.

[gary v1]

Hardly news, is it? Al Qaeda has always been an ideological umbrella for like-minded jihadists. What Bin Laden and his guys in Pakistan DO do is provide logistical support for independent cells, and hook them up with sponsors.

 

The Power of Nightmares documentary definitely made metion of this saying how it was an invention of media/western government. Easier to spread fear if you can put a name on a primary source.

 

On a different note what do people think of AV? I think I'll be voting in favour of it. David Cameron is talking out of his arse on this one. Saying that it's "bad for democracy" is particularly odd seeing as it means everyone will be able to vote for who they actually want rather than tactically vote as people would perhaps do now.

 

I also find anyone who says the system is confusing to be incredibly patronising. There's such an assumption that the public are morons. Ranking your choices in order isn't really that difficult.

 

On the other hand however the thing about how MPs will have the backing of at least 50% of their constituents doesn't seem right (even if we take this to be consitituents who bothered to vote). For example if the vote is split 40/30/25 for parties A/B/C on the first preference votes but nobody has picked a 2nd preference (or preferences are for minor parties) then surely A would win but with only 40% of voters endorsing them? OK this is an extreme example but it shows you still don't necessarily need 50% of the vote.

Edited February 18, 2011 by gary v1

[David]

It appears that not every Conservative councillor is a boring old twit;

 

A respectable Conservative councillor and former mayor has admitted leading a secret double life - as a leather-clad member of a violent biker gang.

 

Jim Mason, 61, has led a distinguished 12-year career as a cabinet member on Tewkesbury Borough Council, Gloucestershire.

 

But it emerged he was a member of the fearsome Outlaws Motorcycle Club, who were behind the 2007 murder of a Hells Angel on the M40 in Warwickshire.

 

Photographs taken in September 2009 show him posing with another tattooed member of the Outlaws in Worcestershire - who is sticking his middle finger up to the camera.

 

The Outlaws - classed as an organised crime group by police forces across the world - was formed in America in 1935 and spread to Europe, where it now has 30 chapters.

 

Members are bitter enemies of the Hells Angels and a series of tit-for-tat bombings, shootings and arson attacks have taken place around the world.

 

In 2008 seven members of the gang were jailed for the motorway drive-by killing of Gerry Tobin on the M40 after the biker's Bulldog Bash festival a year earlier.

 

Members of the two gangs also clashed in the arrivals hall at Birmingham Airport in 2008.

 

Around 30 bikers - armed with knives, hammers and machetes - took part in the mass brawl. Seven were later convicted for their part in the riot.

 

In a series of pictures that emerged yesterday, the gang's fearsome skull and crossbones logo is emblazoned across bearded Mason's chest as he solemnly raises a glass to the camera.

 

In another picture, he casually chats to fellow bikers in his full leathers.

 

In his more genteel local government existence, the respected councillor was handed the mayoral chains after being voted into the prestigious post in 2003.

 

Although there is no suggestion Cllr Mason has been involved in any violence, he used to be a 'full patch' member of the group, it is believed.

 

In some countries being a full patch member means taking part in a dangerous initiation ceremonies, which often involve violence.

 

Speaking from his home in posh Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, yesterday, Mr Mason admitted he used to be an Outlaws member but had now quit.

 

'All I will say is that I was a member of the Outlaws, but I am not a member anymore and haven't been for some time,' he said.

 

'I have a private life - please contact my Conservative office if you need anymore comment.'

Source: The Daily Heil

 

Good on him, I say. At least we know of one Conservative party member who has a pulse.

[Loki]

On a different note what do people think of AV? I think I'll be voting in favour of it. David Cameron is talking out of his arse on this one. Saying that it's "bad for democracy" is particularly odd seeing as it means everyone will be able to vote for who they actually want rather than tactically vote as people would perhaps do now.

 

I'm seriously torn.

 

On the one hand, it's miles better than the current system and would force parties into more partisan politics, plus as you say people can actually vote for who they want.

 

On the other hand... it's NOT PR. I've been an advocate for PR my entire life, and so were the Lib Dems, and all of a sudden they change their mind and I'm supposed to go along? If we get AV, then it'll be another 40 years before I ever see a truly proportional voting system in this country.

[soretooth]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...s-Register.html

 

If it was a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl - then sure (Caution instead if reported), but in all other terms I don't agree with that.

What a disturbing article. I was particularly appalled by the photo of a sickening sex fiend lurking near a playground. Why can we no longer think of the British Isles without the word "paedoph" in front of them?

 

Sorry to go back a few posts but here is a good rebuttal of that Sun article from the New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...s-sex-offenders

 

Following the Supreme Court's decision in April last year to allow a teenager and a 59-year-old man to challenge the permanent inclusion of their names on the UK sex offenders register, it was announced this week that the government is reluctantly granting the right of appeal to thousands of others on the list, including convicted rapists and paedophiles. And so they should.

 

The "register" refers to a system of police notification that has been collating the details of all those cautioned, convicted or released from prison for sexual offences since 1997. As of October last year, more than 48,000 people were listed in England and Wales alone. Half of this figure was subject to an indefinite term of registration -- a requirement for offenders who had been given jail sentences of 30 months or longer.

 

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has insisted that the government would make the "minimum possible changes to the law" to comply with the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. The bar for appeals, she said on 16 February, would be set as "high as possible", with offenders only able to lodge an appeal a full 15 years after their release from custody. Furthermore, she announced: "The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, not the courts . . . There will be no right of appeal against the police's decision to keep an offender on the register."

 

These are worrying provisos, especially in the light of a statement issued by the criminologist and former police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, who worked in the field of child protection for 15 years. He said to BBC News: "[Paedophiles] are like leopards, they don't change their spots . . . What we will end up with is potentially a very dangerous situation where someone has committed offences in the past and [is] able to say they haven't committed any new offences and therefore don't present a risk. But they are a risk in the same way as an alcoholic is always an alcoholic."

 

If such attitudes are prevalent within the police force, as they seem to be among certain politicians (judging by their Daily Mail-fearing, panic-stricken reactions to the news), justice is unlikely to be served. Rape and paedophilia are emotive issues but, more than that, they are serious social issues that need to be addressed in a serious, socially conscious manner. The discourse around them must be free from the distorting lens of mob logic and paranoia. David Cameron, predictably "appalled", has said that the Supreme Court's ruling "seems to fly completely in the face of common sense". But this "common sense" -- nothing more than a convenient and politically malleable consensus -- is not the be all and end all; it certainly should not be treated as an authority.

 

The Supreme Court's rationale for making such an inevitably controversial ruling was grounded in solid, progressive values: the lack of the option to appeal was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Tories have long been open about their disdain for the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows Britons to claim the rights enshrined in the 1950 convention without having to go all the way to Strasbourg. Instead, the Conservatives want a bill of rights that would, according to May, ensure that "the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals".

 

But May's words betray the corrosive, illiberal attitude that, once a person commits a crime, he or she can no longer be counted as a member of the public. The Conservative MP Phillip Hollobone offers a similarly simplistic analysis of human rights in general: "It's being used to promote the rights of bad people over the rights of good people." His binary understanding of human nature -- his childish assumption that there is a clear dividing line between "good" and "bad" -- is symptomatic of the gulf that exists between reality and the Conservative understanding of crime.

 

Take, for example, one of the cases that brought about the Supreme Court ruling discussed above. In October 2005, a teenage boy was sentenced to 30 months for raping a six-year-old child. But the rapist, known only as F, was himself just 11 when the crime took place. The question of whether the misdeeds of children should be treated in the same way as adult offences aside, it seems disproportionate to me that a single act committed at 11 should permanently stain F's future. So far, his inclusion on the sex offenders register has prevented him from going on a family holiday and playing rugby league. As he grows up, it will surely continue to disfigure his life in more invasive ways, unless his appeal is successful. Can F be described so simply as a "bad person", as Hollobone no doubt would?

 

In contrast to the irrational responses of the Tories, Donald Findlater of the Lucy Faithful Foundation has stressed that we must "recognise that sex offenders cover a wide range of different kinds of behaviours and different kinds of risks . . . The fact that these people end up on the register for life because of their sentence doesn't tell me how risky they are." Britain's guilty fear of paedophilia must not be exploited to bolster the case for some absurd bill of rights. More importantly, human rights must extend to us all, from convicts and former sex offenders to law-abiding citizens. Once we take a selective approach to granting their protection, they cease to mean anything at all.