Witch, burn him!!!
Itâs a long thread (I havenât put it all up so click the links to follow it)âŚbut itâs important that the questions it raises do need to be answered.
Wales have announced that an inquiry will be held. I guess no news is good news as far as England is concerned. But not to worry weâll have more nukes, while nurses are still pulling double shifts for less than they earned a year ago and the queues at the food banks keep increasing.
Although an MPâs wife/tennis partner/solicitor (delete as necessary) has just seen a nice big boost to their bank balance. So not really wasted at all.
2 Likes
to be completely fair, i imagine alot of that money would have been spent on security and communications.
2.6 sounds like a lot of money for a room, but it needs to be qualified where the room is/was?
i mean, if its a pre-existing room and all theyve done is give it a facelift, well, thats a bit off a pisstake.
if its a brand new room in a brand new facilityâŚ
Oh dear, youâd think that a QC and former Director of Public Prosecutions would know the law.
And for the record, I believe Starmer does know the law.
1 Like
lets look at the bright side , atleast the royal scandal isnt being discussed
Wow. Is this really the message that Labour want to be putting out right now? That rape can be committed without consequences? That itâs been âdecriminalisedâ? Thatâs fucking appalling.
I really hope this gets deleted. Make this same point in a more responsible manner.
1 Like
Ouch. Thatâs not good at all.
1 Like
Not only is it appalling, itâs an outright fucking lie!!
1 Like
It would be fair to criticism the low number of rape convictions, but suggesting itâs been decriminalised is downright irresponsible.
4 Likes
Agreed, I was going to add âirresponsibleâ but kept spelling it wrong.
2 Likes
Strange, outrageous, that you could potentially get more time in jail for serious damage to a statue than for serious damage to a person.
Apologies for put that so bluntly, cold.
5 Likes
1 Like
1 Like
next step towards dictatorship or am I reading this wrong?
I think we should reserve judgment. JR is an absolutely essential tool for challenging the reasonableness of decisions made by public authorities. That should absolutely not be watered down, undermined or threatened in any way.
What I think is reasonable is looking at areas where JR is being misused or, possibly, even abused. There are justified concerns that the Courts are being asked to supplant the decisions of elected politicians and to wander into areas of policy. For many reasons that should be avoided.
But yes, politicians still need to be subject to being held accountable through the Courts for the manner of their decisions (and whether they were [legally] competent to take them), and through the ballot box for the decisions themselves.
1 Like