As for political mileage, something the victims families asked not to happen⌠much Boris Bullshit already doing the rounds⌠but this blog seems so highlight the complexity, yet as we see in nearly ALL aspects of voter decision making, I doubt the devil in the particular detail will ever be used compared to BJ headlines on security and crime and how they will âtoughâ on sentencingâŚ
1 Like
I think weâve seen here that making political capital from this attack, at best, makes people feel uncomfortable. But that hasnât stopped our Prime Minister. So this needs to go here.
Contrasting performances on Marr this morning.
Shemi Chakrabarti was the epitome of dignity and restraint as she refused to make political capital from London Bridge II and wouldnât be goaded by Marr into trying to criticise any administration over the events that led to the attackerâs release.
Boris Johnson however rabidly blustered and outright lied as he tried to lay the blame for the attack on Labourâs IPP law.
Marr did his best to hold him to account on the 10 years of Tory rule that would have allowed him and the Tories to have kept the public safe.
Watch this and tell me, no matter what side of the political divide you are on, that it doesnât make you want to spit.
EDIT: And hereâs how you can show class on this issue. Even though Marr tries to drag her into commenting on this incident, she refuses to do so.
4 Likes
Many wonât be surprised to see Liz Trussâs name mentioned hereâŚ
News of Johnsonâs plagiarism seems to be spreading:
https://www.newsweek.com/boris-johnson-accused-plagiarizing-legal-blogger-1474926
1 Like
Thing is, in the past this would be enough of a scandal to bring him down⌠these days too many of the electorate are just âmehâ ⌠like Trump getting away with "pussy grabbingâ in an era of âgreater awareness of the abuses of sexual predators/powerful menâŚâ âŚ, there seem to be just enough ignorant fuckwits for whom this sort of thing means nothing⌠and in effect they have the casting vote.
1 Like
Itâs worse than that, itâs likely to be a conscious decision to get double exposure.
Once for the content of the tweet and once again for the furore that we cause by complaining about it.
And dare I say it, maybe even once again for any âapologyâ for stealing the content.
Itâs been a constant throughout the campaign and weâve all been complicit.
2 Likes
This is from the father of one of the victimsâŚ
2 Likes
Wow. Just wow.
2 Likes
Was listening to George Gallowayâs show last night. If Gorgeous George is to be believe, the perpetrator was originally sentenced at Her Majestyâs Pleasure (indeterminate sentence, largely on account of him wanting to blow the Houses of Parliament and City of London up).
Fuck Johnson for trying to blame Labour for this. Perpetrator was convicted in 2012, two years into the Tory government. The Tories themselves decided to review the legislation in 2013, but did not apply the law retrospectively.
And thatâs did not, not could not.
We frown upon ex post facto law in this country, but itâs not a taboo. If we could do it for the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or to retrospectively change tax laws to catch evaders (Finance Bill 2008) then I think the Tories had scope to stop people being automatically released halfway through their sentences.
2 Likes
Are you allowed to pass laws like that retrospectively? I could see that getting shit canned on human rights grounds
Weâve done it before for less serious matters (examples above) so yes.
Indeed. The issue of the âhowâ does seem to be about a human rights issue.
And it answers my question about why no parole board.
Below is lazily copied and unverified*.
âLord Falconer has explained that under his original judicial sentence Khan would have had to go before the Parole Board half way through his jail term for their assessment as to whether he could be safely released. It was, however, as a direct consequence of a Court of Appeal ruling that the need for Parole Board consideration was removed from the revised judicial sentence.â
* so is this, but shouldnât be hard to check and damning** if true.
âThe court of justice ruling was that indeterminate sentences were a contravention of the prisonerâs human rights IF the imprisoning government did not provide the prisoner with the means to become safe to be released.
Faced with the prospect of either having to employ sufficient trained staff to ensure that the prisoner had the opportunity to reform, or to simply let them out as if they were prisoners with a non-indeterminate fixed term sentence, Gove decided it would be cheaper to just let them out.â
** for anyone thatâs tried to, you know, the opposite of this
âDonât use my sonâs death, and his and his colleagueâs photos - to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for - hatred, division, ignoranceâ
1 Like