jbritchfordSeems to me that given the intelligence was correct that Duggan had been transporting a gun, the belief on the part of the shooting officer that Duggan could have been preparing to fire would be a reasonable one. This is obviously contingent on Duggan’s behavior at the scene, but if he obeyed Police instructions I would think it unlikely that he would be shot.
It’s not impossible that the UK police can act outside the law sometimes, but given how rarely firearms are actually used, I think that a ‘gung-ho’ attitude is hardly prevalent.
jbritchfordThey should only be entitled to the amount they have previously contributed
Unless you change the benefits system to be a contribution based one, where everyone is treated equally, then this would be illegal. EU law means that laws can’t discriminate against against citizens from other EU states.
Some people might not like it, but I’m sure there would be complaints if British immigrants in France/Spain faced similar restrictions/conditions to the ones being suggested.
jbritchfordThose laws need fixing.
This system is being abused, and being abused at our expense.
So you’d be ok with the inevitable reciprocal discrimination that British citizens may face as a result?
As for your claim, I’m yet to be convinced. Abuse does exist, but how prevalent is it?
jbritchfordSo, if i move to eastern Europe can i claim benefits from them?
You’re entitled to claim whatever the citizens of that country are, that’s the point.
jbritchfordThere is no such thing as certainty, and we already use the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof to convict people of all felonies, so there would have to be an even higher level of proof than that.
In any case, people have been wrongfully convicted of many things over the years, including murder. We have no reason to assume that the justice system would be any less fallible if we re-introduced the death penalty.
On another measure, I simply do not think the state should ever hold a mandate to be able to kill one of its citizens. I don’t trust it to. From the many comments on here, we know what a dog’s dinner our politicians can make out of any policy, from immigration to defence, and yet there are people clamouring to let them design a legal framework where the end result is execution?
I think we should also look at most murders with a degree of pity. Though there are some that are just unspeakably terrible individuals, I’d wager that a high proportion of them are mentally ill, as are many prisoners for all crimes. This doesn’t excuse their crimes or mean we have to forgive them, but executing the mentally ill? That’s the best solution?
Capital punishment won’t bring back the dead. It won’t be foolproof. It won’t act as a deterrent (otherwise why do they have just as many, if not more murders in the US?). I actually think that there are those we would be better off without, who do actually deserve to die for their crimes – but given how prone we are to making mistakes and how uncomfortable I feel with giving the state that kind of power, I cannot support the death penalty for anything.
jbritchfordIf I recall this is more about preventing an activity where the supermarket might be liable for damages if someone was injured/poisoned as a result of bin diving/eating the spoils, rather than some kind of petty anger that refuse was being taken.
jbritchfordThe key is: ‘Should there be independence at any cost?’
ie, at what point does the financial cost of independence outweigh the imperative?
Even if Scotland and England did agree a Sterling union, there would be a cost to England of implementation, which would have to be passed back to Scotland. That goes for any other similar situation too.The Devil is always in the detail, and I don’t believe Mr Salmond has made a convincing case.
I am unclear on the plans for defence – can someone fill me in? Is there an expectation of a split of the current armed forces?
I wholly agree with Charlie that even in the event of a ‘No’ vote, Scotland should have more autonomy.
I think that’s a question that only the residents of Scotland can address.
Just my 2 cents, if Scotland decides to go then I think it’ll be sad in many ways, but it’s not for rUK to stop them. However, I do think that the pro independence lobby has been giving a false impression of what the situation would be following a yes vote. From that point on the govt in Westminster has a big responsibility to the people of the rest of the UK to get as good a bargain out of the situation as possible. Naturally I think this should be a fair split and that Scotland is entitled to its share of Union assets, but it doesn’t mean rUK (or anyone else for that matter) will simply agree to the terms set out by the SNP. This seems to be the attitude portrayed by Alex Salmond, that Scotland will get X,Y,Z without any push back from anyone else. Sorry, Alex, but we’re going to go for the best bargain we can get too.
On a side note, I have heard some murmurings of Shetland independence too. If they were to campaign for this so they could grab a large EEZ and (proportionately) vast oil reserves they could live like kings, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?
jbritchfordDamn! That means the Italians won’t let the Scots into the European Union now.
Al, I am with you. I can’t see any reason why a true Scot would vote ‘no’. You get such a rotten deal being in the union, far better to join Ireland and Iceland in independent prosperity.
Moggy
Perhaps there are other areas that could also benefit from independence? 😀
If Scotland wishes to go it’s own way then I think everyone can respect that decision, but I do tend to find any kind of nationalism a bit tiresome, frankly. Borders are such arbitrary things, it just seems to me that you can forever reduce the ‘we don’t want to be ruled by other people’ notion until everyone is just a state of one. Why should Leicestershire be ruled by London? Why should Loughborough be ruled by Leicester? Why should area x be ruled by area y? I think all this does stem from a genuine problem, a deficit of democratic representation at the sub-national level in the UK, but instead of independence for the nations of the UK, I think that a reformed union would give us all the best of both worlds.
Federalise the UK, give the nations total internal autonomy, with all foreign/defense etc aspects decided on together. It’s a shame this option hasn’t been driven forward more strongly imho.
jbritchfordTo all those objecting – would you still be up in arms if a Methodist wanted to leave money to family members on the condition of temperance?
I doubt it, and really this is the same thing.
jbritchfordOn the other hand, why should it be okay for individuals to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender or religion, and not employers?
At present, individuals can choose who they consort with, who they buy goods and services from and who they want to give their money to. Are you saying that equality legislation should apply to all these interactions? I don’t approve of racism or the other types of discrimination occurring, but it’s the price of freedom. Unless you want to hand the state the power to meddle with people’s lives whenever someone disagrees with the hive mind then it’s just something we have to put up with. We can still campaign against it and tackle it when it happens, but I’d rather have to do that than have an all-powerful state with the means and authority to intervene against every infraction.
jbritchfordIt does seem a little odd that the law seems to want to question the motives of those that write a will as much as what they are doing.
I think people should be able to leave their money to whomever they wish, so long as they haven’t been coerced into their decision. To their political party, to the RSPCA, to their children, whomever. Having the state intervene whenever the motives may be questionable or out of step with societal trends seems to be going way too far imho.
jbritchfordI’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with Charlie.
I honestly believe that the BBC is, despite its problems, the finest public broadcaster in the world. Although it’s an imperfect system, I also think that the licence fee isn’t that bad a system for funding it, since the alternative is direct taxation, and all the government control that entails. At least the licence fee gives the BBC a degree of independence that it needs.
It seems to me that a lot of the attacks against the BBC are political in nature, and stem from the fact that a) Commercial television would like to have a few rivals as possible. b) There are people opposed to public ownership on principle and c) If there is a profit to be had in destroying the BBC there will be those that want to do it. For me, the Conservative party would tick several of these boxes, as well as gaining from the fact that without the BBC the media in the UK would be dominated by Rupert Murdoch and his companies, and this would probably help them.
jbritchfordThe tolerating of islamic schools which alienate muslim youth from their peers and the power of imrans is continuing the problem down the generations.
I don’t know how to change the extremists but we should not tolerate female mutilation, forced marriages, the aborting of female babies and those who cause or allow this to happen should be severly punished and if possible deported.
I partly agree, but then I’m not completely on board with religious schools in general. If there were schools with politically oriented themes we’d see it as a strange practice with rather sinister connotations, but for some reason religion is a bit different (though I’m not sure why).
As for those other points, I’m glad they are illegal, even if the enforcement of the laws leaves a lot to be desired.
jbritchfordWhatever people think of UKIP, they are a far more credible party than The Liberals (under Clegg) will ever be.
Come the general election I think the Liberals will get a hammering, but I imagine they will still get an order of magnitude more seats than UKIP. We’ll see.
jbritchfordI have been working since i was 16, and voting ever since.
In 33 years i have worked under the Tories,Labour,ConDem governments and i have to say i have no faith in any of them.It is all too institutionalised ,1 v 1 entrenched blame culture.
I am personally fed up with the lot of them so how should i vote?All the comments about the bad things about UKIP ,well lets do some likewise digging into some of the Labour,Cons,LibDem candidates past and present –not so pretty either.
People died for the right to vote but the right to vote for a decent way just isn’t available [realistically].
So who do i vote for ? No vote won’t change anything so guilty of keeping things the gruesome same.
Personally I think you need to vote for whoever will give electoral reform. Remember, politicians care a great deal about keeping their jobs and for most of them they are in safe seats, so this isn’t a problem. All they have to do is tow the party line so they don’t get deselected, and all the parties have to do is preach to the converted in their constituencies. That and the party whip which means private organisations (political parties) can coerce MPs into voting one way or the other, politicians regulating themselves, and dozens of other things. But this can only be fixed by reforming the political system itself, which I think should begin with dumping FPTP:
Sign In
