Dodgy Dave, Don't most people get sacked for back handers? Options

[Squelchy]

If it is to be insisted that all rape is the same (as opposed to there being gradations such as in assaults) then a low conviction rate will remain.

What?...or as the young say wtf?

Are you saying that there should be 'serious rapes', 'not-so-serious rapes' and 'hardly worth bothering about rapes'? You are suggesting graduations of rape?

When a woman says 'no' that's it. No means No.

What planet are you on? Rape is rape. To suggest otherwise is bizarre and dangerous.

[Cognosco]

Manifestos are pledges. That is more than a broad outline as you put it.

Stating no top down re-org is more than a last minute minor change. This is a profound change that has nothing to do with PR. He pledged not to do it, I doubt the Lib Dems persuaded him to do it. It is lying by omission. Tory deception.

Few people want this other than his rich friends.

Lansley has been planning this for the last seven years so it is not a last minute change. The Lib Liars will never be forgiven for not stopping it. Such a major change should never be carried out without it being in a manifesto and have a mandate for it approved. Of course they would not do that as they knew very well the would be unable to get that mandate. So like privatisation of the NHS they brought it in throught the back door.

[Cognosco]

Maybe you could tell me what gaffs? I wouldn't actually call this one a gaff; it was a dinner party.



Yes and he was talking about Lobbying. This wasn't lobbying but a dinner party. There is a distinction between the two.

I think that has been well answered by others so will not add to your misery!

The name of the meeting is irrelevant it is the fact that those with money are able to buy the ear of the Prime Minister that is the problem.
If someone is paying in the region of £250000 as has been reported then it would be beneficial for the Prime Minister to say I don't have to disclose it as it was a private dinner. Sorry GMR it does not work does it? Not only should it be sleaze free it must be seen to be sleaze free!

[Vodabury]

What?...or as the young say wtf?

Are you saying that there should be 'serious rapes', 'not-so-serious rapes' and 'hardly worth bothering about rapes'? You are suggesting graduations of rape?

When a woman says 'no' that's it. No means No.

What planet are you on? Rape is rape. To suggest otherwise is bizarre and dangerous.

The planet I am on is one where there could perhaps be a calm and mature debate to try to solve an issue such as a very low conviction rate for a certain type of crime. Please read my last post in full (especially the final line).

[Jayjay]

I wouldn't call them gaffs, more like stupidity. I don't think there is government in history who hasn't had stupid ministers; it goes with the territory.

But that is what a gaff is. Opening mouth without thinking, putting your foot it, making a silly mistake. It is not liying or misleading. It is not a malicious act. Or, in my case, the gaff was pressing the post button twice.

[Vodabury]

But that is what a gaff is. Opening mouth without thinking, putting your foot it, making a silly mistake. It is not liying or misleading. It is not a malicious act. Or, in my case, the gaff was pressing the post button twice.

I think the government has "gaffed" and been made to look silly over recent events. For me, the bigger story was "Gorgeous George".

[Strafin]

That is quite some list everyone seems to be ignoring! Well done DSB, interesting reading.

[GMR]

Manifestos are pledges. That is more than a broad outline as you put it.

Stating no top down re-org is more than a last minute minor change. This is a profound change that has nothing to do with PR. He pledged not to do it, I doubt the Lib Dems persuaded him to do it. It is lying by omission. Tory deception.

Few people want this other than his rich friends.

First of all I meant that if PR was put into practice then manifesto's would become increasingly irrelevant (or just a broad outline). As for the rest; I stick by what I said; that governments constantly add or change manifesto's. The problem isn't that they were added but whether what they had added was a good idea or not. And it is; depending on who you ask, that is.

[GMR]

I think that has been well answered by others so will not add to your misery!

The name of the meeting is irrelevant it is the fact that those with money are able to buy the ear of the Prime Minister that is the problem.
If someone is paying in the region of £250000 as has been reported then it would be beneficial for the Prime Minister to say I don't have to disclose it as it was a private dinner. Sorry GMR it does not work does it? Not only should it be sleaze free it must be seen to be sleaze free!

Whether you believe or not depends on what side of the fence you are on. As for not adding; what about proof?

[GMR]

But that is what a gaff is. Opening mouth without thinking, putting your foot it, making a silly mistake. It is not liying or misleading. It is not a malicious act. Or, in my case, the gaff was pressing the post button twice.

Yes I know.

[Andy Capp]

First of all I meant that if PR was put into practice then manifesto's would become increasingly irrelevant (or just a broad outline). As for the rest; I stick by what I said; that governments constantly add or change manifesto's. The problem isn't that they were added but whether what they had added was a good idea or not. And it is; depending on who you ask, that is.

No it isn't. It is about a promise of a new politics and no top down re-org of the NHS.

[GMR]

No it isn't. It is about a promise of a new politics and no top down re-org of the NHS.

You are very naive if you believe what politicians say. It is about getting into power; and that means saying what the general public want to hear.

[Andy Capp]

You are very naive if you believe what politicians say. It is about getting into power; and that means saying what the general public want to hear.

In other words, he lied, which is what I said in the first place.

[GMR]

In other words, he lied, which is what I said in the first place.

He would be an unusual politician if he didn't.

Concerning my point; you fingered Cameron as if he was unusual, which he isn't. Politicians have one objective and that is to get into a position of power and they can only do that with the support of the gullible or the adherent.

[Andy Capp]

Concerning my point; you fingered Cameron as if he was unusual

Nope. I made a comment about our current Prime Minister. I never voted for him or his chum, but I was hoping he and his party might learn some lessons. They haven't.

Politicians have one objective and that is to get into a position of power and they can only do that with the support of the gullible or the adherent.

or the apathetic.

[blackdog]

What?...or as the young say wtf?

Are you saying that there should be 'serious rapes', 'not-so-serious rapes' and 'hardly worth bothering about rapes'? You are suggesting graduations of rape?

When a woman says 'no' that's it. No means No.

What planet are you on? Rape is rape. To suggest otherwise is bizarre and dangerous.

Of course there are gradations of rape. Statutory rape, for instance, can happen with the woman saying yes. And there are gradations there too - stautory rape by a 14 year old boyfried is surely less criminal than by a 30 year old uncle.

Clarke was merely suggesting that a single mandatory sentence for rape would not make sense. The circumstances of the rape must be taken into consideration. For instance someone breaking into a woman's bedroom in the small hours, threatening her with a knife and raping her is not the same as a drunken lout forcing himself on a drunken female at a party. Both are heinous crimes deserving of custodial sentences, but the same sentence?

[x2lls]

Of course there are gradations of rape. Statutory rape, for instance, can happen with the woman saying yes. And there are gradations there too - stautory rape by a 14 year old boyfried is surely less criminal than by a 30 year old uncle.

Clarke was merely suggesting that a single mandatory sentence for rape would not make sense. The circumstances of the rape must be taken into consideration. For instance someone breaking into a woman's bedroom in the small hours, threatening her with a knife and raping her is not the same as a drunken lout forcing himself on a drunken female at a party, or as a predator who drugs . Both are heinous crimes deserving of custodial sentences, but the same sentence?

Absolutely yes, you need to ask?

[Guest_jaycakes_*]

I think the same sentence would not make sense.
Because let's face it, a 14 or 15 year old these days is more than aware enough to decide if she wants a little something-something so to penalise for that with the same punishment of a "wait behind a bush and then kidnap" type is stupid and wrong.

Likewise the drunken party scenario, how often does "oh yessssfshhhh *dribble*" one night turn into "I SAID NO" the next morning?
The circumstances are everything and it's not like a beanie hat from Wyvdale, one size doesn't fit all..

Although I never manage to get comfortable in those one size fit all hats...they may fit everyone else but they don't fit me.

[Squelchy]

For instance someone breaking into a woman's bedroom in the small hours, threatening her with a knife and raping her is not the same as a drunken lout forcing himself on a drunken female at a party. Both are heinous crimes deserving of custodial sentences, but the same sentence?

Yes. If a woman says, and means, 'No', then it doesn't matter what age the person who rapes her is. Neither do the surroundings.

No means No and rape is rape.

Unless you're saying that "I was a bit drunk" is some kind of mitigation.


Try here

[GMR]

Nope. I made a comment about our current Prime Minister. I never voted for him or his chum, but I was hoping he and his party might learn some lessons. They haven't.


or the apathetic.

Did you really believe that politicians would learn from past mistakes? Politicians are not perfect and thus will make mistakes and will continue making mistakes or saying things that will get them into power.

It was PT Barnum who said that "there was a sucker born every minute".