💙💙 Tory Wins 💙💙

 

On 26/03/2023 at 23:21, Jol_BWFC said:

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it against. Priory #1 is themselves. Priority #2 is their party (because that directly helps themselves). Priority #3 (at best) is their constituents / the good of the nation.

First vote I ever cast was for Doug Hoyle when I lived in Warrington

His priorities were completely the reverse. A good and decent politician. Can’t think of one that I’d currently rate anywhere near him

PMQ Rayner asks why there are 20k less Police Community Officers, Raab responds that the Labour party opposed an increase in the police via the new Police Bill. Just a reminder this is the new police bill laws opposed by Labour.

 

What other laws will the bill introduce?

• Higher maximum penalties will be introduced for child cruelty offences
• Domestic abuse victims will be given more time to report incidents of common assault or battery
• Mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of killing an emergency worker whilst committing a crime
• On terrorism, the bill will create powers to more closely monitor offenders released from prison
• Community sentences for less serious crime will address underlying problems in offenders' lives
• Changes to sexual offences law will tackle abusive adults in positions of trust, such as sports coaches and religious figures

 

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

36 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

PMQ Rayner asks why there are 20k less Police Community Officers, Raab responds that the Labour party opposed an increase in the police via the new Police Bill. Just a reminder this is the new police bill laws opposed by Labour.

 

What other laws will the bill introduce?

• Higher maximum penalties will be introduced for child cruelty offences
• Domestic abuse victims will be given more time to report incidents of common assault or battery
• Mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of killing an emergency worker whilst committing a crime
• On terrorism, the bill will create powers to more closely monitor offenders released from prison
• Community sentences for less serious crime will address underlying problems in offenders' lives
• Changes to sexual offences law will tackle abusive adults in positions of trust, such as sports coaches and religious figures

 

You can't just cherry-pick 6 points from a ~330 page bill and claim that's why the Opposition opposed it. Well you can, but it's disingenuous at best.

Here's what Amnesty International said about it:

"The Policing Bill is part of a hugely worrying and widespread attack on human rights from across Government which will not only see basic rights reduced across the board, but will also strip people of the means to challenge or contest their treatment."

Do you honestly believe the Conservatives have suddenly decided to start fixing everything they've spent 13 years wrecking?

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Cheese

5 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You can't just pick 6 points from a ~330 page bill and claim that's why the Opposition opposed it.

Do you honestly believe the Conservatives have suddenly decided to start fixing everything they've spent 13 years wrecking?

For balance this is why Labour voted against it. Opposing it not justifiable in my opinion. 

Labour votes against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill at Third Reading    - The Labour Party

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

39 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

PMQ Rayner asks why there are 20k less Police Community Officers, Raab responds that the Labour party opposed an increase in the police via the new Police Bill. Just a reminder this is the new police bill laws opposed by Labour.

 

What other laws will the bill introduce?

• Higher maximum penalties will be introduced for child cruelty offences
• Domestic abuse victims will be given more time to report incidents of common assault or battery
• Mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of killing an emergency worker whilst committing a crime
• On terrorism, the bill will create powers to more closely monitor offenders released from prison
• Community sentences for less serious crime will address underlying problems in offenders' lives
• Changes to sexual offences law will tackle abusive adults in positions of trust, such as sports coaches and religious figures

 

so there are 20k less community officers because labour opposed the bill?

I don't get it

i do

deflection

answer the question nobhead

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

For balance this is why Labour voted against it. 

 

Labour votes against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill at Third Reading    - The Labour Party

And what do you disagree with? Do you think the sentence for damaging a statue SHOULD be higher than the minimum sentence for rape?

How’s them 40 NEW hospitals coming along?

39 minutes ago, Cheese said:

And what do you disagree with? Do you think the sentence for damaging a statue SHOULD be higher than the minimum sentence for rape?

I doubt that would ever happen, the judge decides the sentence not the government. 

46 minutes ago, Zico said:

so there are 20k less community officers because labour opposed the bill?

I don't get it

i do

deflection

answer the question nobhead

Extra funding for 20k more officers as part of the bill. 
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/policing-to-receive-up-to-11-billion-extra-to-cut-crime

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

7 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I doubt that would ever happen, the judge decides the sentence not the government. 

Do you agree with it though?

54 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Do you agree with it though?

I agree that the government has increased the maximum sentence that can be imposed. 
I’ll let the judge decide whether criminal damage or other crimes such as fraud etc that the sentence is determined by a judge who’s much more qualified than you are I am.
The fundamental issue is the Labour Party played party politics to prevent a bill going through that denied extra funding and higher sentences for abhorrent crimes. I ain’t happy with that call and many other potential Labour voters won’t be. 

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

21 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I agree that the government has increased the maximum sentence that can be imposed. 
I’ll let the judge decide whether criminal damage or other crimes such as fraud etc that the sentence is determined by a judge who’s much more qualified than you are I am.
The fundamental issue is the Labour Party played party politics to prevent a bill going through that denied extra funding and higher sentences for abhorrent crimes. I ain’t happy with that call and many other potential Labour voters won’t be. 

The bill passed you muppet.

4 minutes ago, Cheese said:

The bill passed you muppet.

I know it did…  because Labour only got half a dozen MPs…but they opposed it and that’s the point. 

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I know it did…  because Labour only got half a dozen MPs…but they opposed it and that’s the point. 

Yet you don't disagree with their reasons for opposing it. You think "Even though the bill passed, it'll probably never happen anyway, because Judges or something".

7 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Yet you don't disagree with their reasons for opposing it. You think "Even though the bill passed, it'll probably never happen anyway, because Judges or something".

I do disagree with why Labour opposed it. Silly political games by Labour, they shouldn’t be opposing a raft of stronger laws and massive funding to combat crime for the sake l of a maximum sentence for criminal damage that judges are never going to apply. 

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Mounts Kipper

6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I do disagree with why Labour opposed it. Silly political games by Labour, they shouldn’t be opposing a raft of stronger laws and massive funding to combat crime for the sake l of a maximum sentence for criminal damage that judges are never going to apply. 

Isn't that precisely the point? Why is it in the bill if it is "never going to apply"? You're right to say this is a 'Political game', and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Cheese

Just now, Cheese said:

Isn't that precisely the point? Why is it in the bill if it is "never going to apply"?

One part of the bill won’t ever be applied that’s the maximum sentence for criminal damage… so Labour decide not to vote for the bill, which in essence would mean no extra funding, no tougher sentences for the really bad crimes, no money for more police etc, then to compound it the deputy shadow pm chooses to argue about less police at PMQs and gets obliterated.  It’s noted by ex Labour voters like me. 

13 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

One part of the bill won’t ever be applied that’s the maximum sentence for criminal damage… so Labour decide not to vote for the bill, which in essence would mean no extra funding, no tougher sentences for the really bad crimes, no money for more police etc, then to compound it the deputy shadow pm chooses to argue about less police at PMQs and gets obliterated.  It’s noted by ex Labour voters like me. 

So the opposition party should just vote through any old meaningless bollocks because there are a few sensible points alongside it? It's a tactic as old as Parliament itself. "Let's bring forward a bill that has a couple of sensible bits, but then pack it with a load of utter nonsensical shite, so when the opposition vote against it we can say they voted against the sensible bits".

I know you're easily led by these charlatans, but come on man.

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by Cheese

Am I right that the bill passed, even though Labour opposed it......but there are still 20K less community officers? 

Just now, Sweep said:

Am I right that the bill passed, even though Labour opposed it......but there are still 20K less community officers? 

Yes, but it only passed a year ago...

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Yes, but it only passed a year ago...

Yet Mounts is spinning it as Labours fault for the lack of officers....possibly?!? 

7 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Yet Mounts is spinning it as Labours fault for the lack of officers....possibly?!? 

Think he's just taking the latest Conservative line at face value. Doubt he's thought about it beyond that.

22 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Yet Mounts is spinning it as Labours fault for the lack of officers....possibly?!? 

There is no spinning Labour opposed a bill to get tougher on crime and more money for the police. End of story. 

Why do they need to pass a bill to spend more on the police?