Off Topic The Politics Thread

Absolutely no idea of the name or that there was a difference between Laleham and Laleham village.

The liver was nice though.

 

Only when it comes to sell your house. I like living in Laleham. After years living the other side of the airport (Northolt, Hayes, West Drayton) it’s got a better feel, though not without its problems.

 

please log in to view this image

David Lammy's version of U2's "I Still Haven't Found the Police I'm Looking For" went down a Stormzy

please log in to view this image

 

so will the bill get another hearing or is that the end of it

Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly-attended Friday sitting.
And - after all - this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

 

Thanks for that clarification Sir Christopher.

 

it was from the bbc

sounds fair to me
laws that can send people to prison for up to two years should be passed be more than the 20 mps who live in london

 

Upskirting row: MP Sir Christopher Chope says he supports ban

please log in to view this image

Image copyright UK Parliament
The Conservative MP who blocked a bill that would have made "upskirting" a criminal offence has said he "wholeheartedly" supports such a law.
Had the law passed, someone secretly taking a photo up a woman's skirt could have faced up to two years in prison.
Speaking to his local paper, the Bournemouth Echo, Sir Christopher Chope said he was objecting to parliamentary procedure rather than the law itself.
The Christchurch MP said he was not "a dinosaur" and was being "scapegoated".
Prime Minister Theresa May said she was "disappointed" that one of her own MPs had prevented the bill from progressing.

please log in to view this image

Media playback is unsupported on your device
She added that she wanted to see the measures passed soon.

• I was a victim of 'upskirting' - but I'm fighting back
• Speaker calls for private members' bills rethink
• May 'disappointed' at upskirting law block

Sir Christopher said upskirting was "vulgar, humiliating and unacceptable" and said accusations he was "some kind of pervert" were "a complete travesty of the truth".
"It's defamatory of my character and it's very depressing some of my colleagues have been perpetuating that in the past 48 hours," he added.

please log in to view this image

Media playback is unsupported on your device
He explained that he stopped the bill from progressing because he disapproved of how the legislation was being brought in.
"The government has been hijacking time that is rightfully that of backbenchers," he said.
"This is about who controls the House of Commons on Fridays and that's where I am coming from."
He accused the government of trying to "bring in what it wants on the nod", adding: "We don't quite live in the Putin era yet."
'Shame'
The bill was expected to sail through the Commons on Friday, but parliamentary rules mean it only required one MP to shout "object" to block its progress.
Sir Christopher's intervention was met with shouts of "shame" from other MPs.
His actions were attacked by MPs - many from his own party.
Scottish Conservative MP Paul Masterton said the intervention did "damage" to the public's view of the party.

please log in to view this image

Media playback is unsupported on your device

• There is no law specifically naming and banning upskirting in England and Wales - victims and police are currently only able to pursue offences of outraging public decency or as a crime of voyeurism
• Upskirting has been an offence in Scotland since 2010 when it was listed under the broadened definition of voyeurism

What are the limitations of the current situation in England and Wales?

• Voyeurism only applies to filming actions taking place in private
• Outraging public decency usually requires someone to have witnessed the action but upskirting is often unobserved
• Unlike other sexual offences, people don't have an automatic right to anonymity

What does the new law propose?

• As well as carrying a maximum two-year sentence, it would also allow, in the most serious cases, those convicted to be placed on the sex offenders register

 

looks like shes eaten a few though

please log in to view this image

 

We've discussed this before - start to make regular customers with self-inflicted health issues pay for their board lodging and treatment and there'll soon be enough money for people with genuine illnesses and injuries.

 

I do agree to some extent, but looking at the bigger picture and having human compassion, all these people have got to where they are for some reason or another. I really don’t think anyone wakes up one morning and says ‘ You know what, today I’m gonna be an alcoholic’......it’s tragic, in a lot of cases, and I wish I had an answer....sadly I don’t.

 

It’d be a popular idea but you don’t get many wealthy drug addicts, for example. Do we just refuse these people access?

 

If someone is a registered alcoholic or in drug rehabilitation - ie trying to solve their problems with help from the state, then they should not be charged. Otherwise, there should be a charge, or community service for those without funds. And I don't see why taxpayers should pay for drunk tanks filled with revellers who grossly indulge, at least, regularly (I'd give everyone a "one free" before the charge kicks in for further drunken hospital visits)

 

Where does it end ?
Suicide attempts (they take a lot of resources) ?
Teenage stab victims (could be in a gang) ?
Fat people ?
Smokers ?
Jogging cardiac arrests (we get a few) ?

Who gets charged/fined ?

 

It’s probably more cost effective to keep everything free at the point of delivery (its complicated, time consuming and expensive to set up systems to collect fees from drunk people) and focus on public health and education to reduce incidence. Long term solution, so our short term government won’t consider it. But it’s the vulnerable elderly rather than the high profile profligate young who are stuck in hospitals needlessly, because there is nowhere else for them to go.

It’s good that the NHS will get more money, though it will be some time before things feel different and it will only have a lasting positive effect if we recruit/train and reward more healthcare professionals and match the investment with an even bigger one in social care.

Apparently by 2023 our healthcare spending will catch up with what the French spend. Which is where it was in 2010 before Austerity Osborne arrived. It’s a pretty simple thing to understand, with our demographics, that if you disinvest in health and social care you create misery.

Doubtless I will have to cough up more in terms of tax, which is fine (this Brexit dividend stuff is complete bollocks, unless we aren’t going to subsidise the farmers any more), but I will get pissed off if the usual **** spending goes on. Heard on the radio the other day that one NHS trust was paying 64p per toilet roll that it bought, while one down the road was paying 43p. You can get them in Tesco for 22p.

 

Yes but do the Tesco ones wipe your backside properly? Can't help thinking that if I was going to save money on bog rolls I'd rather get them from Aldi or Lidl

 

Again I refer you to the previous discussion. We won't get it right straightaway and there will have to be some adjustment over time to draw the line fairly between those making an innocent mistake once and those who enjoy being legless so much that they will willingly repeat the exercise. Jogging cardiac arrests eh? Do you get many repeat offenders. People who jog usually learn the lesson if they overdo it.

I enjoyed the questions last time so here goes.

Suicide attempts - Yes. anyone desperately unhappy enough to try to take his/her own life needs help.
Teenage stab victims - join a gang and pay the fine
Fat people - can they be treated? have they tried? If the fault lies with their lack of will power rather than their genetic metabolic profile they can pay.
Smokers - definitely should be made to pay. Why should they be rescued time and again and refuse to give up.

Roll up. Any more willing to take on the YH decision maker?

 

Smokers already pay, the tobacco tax contribution is much higher than the cost of treating smokers. Of course that money goes to the Treasury, not the NHS.

 

You have to draw lines. Pretty much agree with York's answer. This is where my lines are:

Suicide attempts - not charged if the subject accepts psychological help and counselling. Should be a hospital discretion here, if repeated attempts are not serious and just attention seeking.

Teenage stab victims - no charge. Hopefully it will put them off gangs for life

Fat people - no charge initially, but if medical advice is ignored and subject doesn't attend slimming sessions etc, a charge could be levied to get them to pull their finger out

Smokers - no charge when subject comes in for smoking related problem, on condition that they act on the necessary doctor's advice to cut down, use patches etc

Jogging - no charge, indeed never a charge for people who are doing sports and exercises (including dangerous ones) which keep them fit

The emphasis has to be on the state helping the individual to help themselves stay fit and healthy.

 

why dont we just go full on logans run for 75 year olds
imagine the savings

 

I'd buy into that for Ken Livingstone