gdp's Comments

And another thing... : And another thing...

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:24:02 +0000

Never say never... I hope some other politician takes as open and honest a stand as you and allows (most) comments from the great unwashed and is willing to engage with as little regard for political double speak and more for their beliefs as you have. Many thanks. I'm still not voting for you... ;) And another thing... "Don't apologize—it's a sign of weakness."

And another thing... : A miserable little electoral system

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:35:51 +0000

Spend about £2 per person to change the current corrupt system where a party with 37% of the vote can claim an overwhelming mandate to enact the largest removal of citizens' rights since the formation of a monarchy. Or something.

And another thing... : The Woolas row is about loyalty, not racism

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:36:09 +0000

But the leadership at the time, in a fit of blind panic over daily revelations in The Telegraph, felt it had to be seen to do something. Funny how no-one around the Labour party ever spoke out about this at the time... Still, as far as Woolas goes, surely innocent until proven guilty? I forgot, New Labour also got rid of that while they were in power...

And another thing... : In praise of Tim Loughton

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:30:59 +0000

"supply children to homosexual pairings." I think that phrasing exposes the unjustified bigotry and scaremongering you can expect from the 'true believer' on issues relating to 'the gays' or 'the theory of evolution'. It is patently obvious that to keep a child institutionalised in an orphanage or constantly moved between straight foster families is worse for the child than being placed with gay adoptive parents. And that's without me even mentioning the Catholic Church's attitudes towards maltreatment in orphanages.

And another thing... : Whatever happened to Guy Fawkes' Night?

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:39:33 +0000

plus the monarch...

And another thing... : Whatever happened to Guy Fawkes' Night?

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:41:43 +0000

"And surely there’s nothing wrong with celebrating the foiling of a dastardly plot to blow up the King and parliament?" Or we could look at what Parliament was doing at the time and how disenfranchised the vast majority of the country were and see him as a freedom fighter. Just sayin' there's two sides to most stories.

Dizzy Thinks : Blast from the Past: Abortion

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:31:55 +0000

So medically remove the baby and use our medical advances to try to allow it to survive. This is removal, not abortion. It is allowed from conception* up until birth. Everyone's a winner. No foetuses were harmed in the making of this comment. * EDIT: Meant to add that this should only apply to things with neural circuits. Anything else is placing religion where we should actually be concerned with suffering and harm.

And another thing... : No room for fudge in the fight against terror

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:20:32 +0000

So we 'know' that they're a threat to this country but there's not enough info to arrest them? Or there is enough info but it was obtained by torture? "When it comes to the safety of citizens, to protecting them from the maniacs and psychopaths who reckon they’re guaranteeing a place for themselves in Paradise by murdering as many innocent people as possible, there is no room for compromise or fudges." A noble premise, somewhat compromised by not banning smoking, alcohol and driving. I would also like to know which of our civil liberties required restricting in order for the UK government to listen to intelligence provided by Saudi Arabia and search the plane (twice since they missed it first time!)? And, more to the point, you are talking absolute nonsense. If you were serious about it we'd have checks at the entrance to all Tube and train stations to ensure people don't get on carriages with bombs, but you're not and we don't. Why? Because we compromise on having a functioning mass transit system and security. End of. PS. Well said Stewart Cowan (this is becoming a habit.)

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:04:25 +0000

The point was Tom was showing us "The perfect argument against votes for prisoners" which was simply a rather nasty man gloating. The actual argument should also include people in jail for non-violent offences and Tom's attempt to paint all incarcerated people as "murderers, rapists and paedophiles" (by taking John Hirst's words) is what I was ridiculing. |I'm sorry you weren't able to glean that, and that Tom and his fellow MPs are frothing at the mount over this rather than having a measured, rational discussion.

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:09:43 +0000

What about the people given non-custodial sentences, when others committing the exact same crime are, where is the logic in allowing one of these groups the right to vote and not the other? Especially when which group you are in is generally based on the local prison overpopulation and whether the judge is having a bad day. I will certainly have a go at Tom and his New Labour morality-based law making and their demolition of the fundamental rights people have taken for granted in this country for centuries but for you to suggest that this is somehow OT is crazy, we're talking about prisoners being able to vote and I'm talking about that as well as what we can go to prison for! New Labour created roughly one new criminal offence for each day it was in power. e.g. You can potentially be jailed for not having a licence for a church concert, smoking in a public place, selling a grey squirrel or shipping unlicensed fish and it is also illegal to swim in the wreck of the Titanic!

And another thing... : 'What would they say if we had done this?' Part 1

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:58:29 +0000

I do not disagree with a single word you wrote. However, didn't Tony Blair, in 2003, actually sell out the British troops by agreeing to join an American-led invasion of Iraq, regardless of any evidence provided? I know you agree with removing Saddam, not a bad thing, but even if it were morally the right thing to do was Blair's decision to go along with it, and accept and present fabricated evidence as a pretence not infinitely worse than what the current incompetents, sorry incumbents, are doing?

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:03:26 +0000

I must point out that prisoners on remand awaiting trial, fine defaulters and people jailed for contempt of court are already permitted to vote...

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:53:04 +0000

Apologies, what I meant to say is "The prison population massively increased under New Labour" And I didn't mean to suggest that the increase was caused by all the new morality based and anti-terrorism laws that New Labour brought in. I was simply suggesting that people might be less inclined to vote for a party that was positioning itself as 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. Year Prison population 1991 42,000 2008 82,000 in 2010: 8,398 people were in prison, unconvicted. Do they get/deserve a vote? 128 fine defaulters. Is it reasonable to not allow them to vote? 2 people are in prison for not supplying police with their passwords. 241,500 people are on probabtion - their sentence is not complete, how come they get to vote? 33,032 Community Orders were issued, all of which could potentially have been custodial, how come they get to vote? I actually don't care if people in prison vote, I just want it to be fair. If you're convicted of a crime then whatever your punishment you have your voting rights rescinded for a period of time (related to your offence) whether in prison or not. Or everyone can vote. I have no position to push, apart from justice, reason and equal treatment. Hence I don't care about what DC or EM say about it, it is about logic, justice and consistency, not party political point scoring.

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:32:36 +0000

Of course, using this logic I can show a picture of Lord Lucan to show why we shouldn't have hereditary peers? Or an MP fraudulently claiming for non-existent expenses to show why we shouldn't allow MPs to vote?

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:30:16 +0000

“murderers, rapists, paedophiles – all of them” As well as people who: refuse to give the police their computer password; people who refuse to pay fines; people on remand who have been convicted of nothing; shoplifters; vandals; people with sexually explicit pictures of their wives (assuming wife is/was under 18 at the time of the photo); people who tweet in annoyed fashion about Robin Hood airport; people eating kit-kats at the lights; etc. etc. Oh, and wrongly convicted people. New Labour massively increased the prison population as well as greatly increasing the number of things that you can now go to prison for. Is it any wonder they don't want prisoners to vote? Also, given the way justice is arbitrarily meted out in this country, can it be right that your right to vote is determined not by your offence but by either how over-crowded your local prison is, or the mood of the judge?

And another thing... : LibDem manifesto negotiations: order your popcorn now

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:32:59 +0000

Cons - we want to do A,B,C Libs - we want to do X,Y,Z Cons, we'll let you do X if you let us do A and B. Otherwise we'll attempt to push through A, B and C but will never allow X, Y or Z. Tom, given that all parties are categorically not working for the benefit of society when they listen to their fringes can you not see that a coalition allows them to placate the fringe while maintaining their support? Anyway, it's a bit rich that someone from the a party, bought by the unions and supported by a minority while in government, is trying to lecture us on democracy, manifestos and fairness.

Dizzy Thinks : The Internet is not private.... OK?

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:18:58 +0000

Utter BS. The code shows that google only stored unencrypted stuff and ignored encrypted data. Besides, since when was incompetence a reasonable excuse? And Dizzy's analogy is all wrong. I can measure the EM radiation your Bluetooth keyboard gives off and effectively log all your keystrokes. Am I invading your privacy? Damn right I am. If I buy a high res IR camera and look throguh your walls to see which room you're in, who's there and what you're doing am I invading your privacy? Of course! Yet you're 'broadcasting' this radiation.

And another thing... : The case for the defence

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:14:38 +0000

A. Like it or not it WAS your reason, unless you invaded separate to the country. B. Indeed, secular western nations would never use them - and certainly never launch a second one to make a point to a third party. C. If the enemy wipes us out then how does our retaliation help with the survival of the human race? It was called MAD for a reason. D. Non-nuclear total war is an horrific thought, but it at least takes time to have a pause for thought and decide that enough is enough. Nuclear war, by its nature, tends to be an all or nothing proposition. E. Allow me to let the Bosnians, Argentinians, Iraqis, Koreans, Vietnamese and Afghans know, I'm sure they'll be mightily relieved. There is a possibility that conventional war could have been waged in central/eastern Europe, but at least our tanks, guns and planes all work in that arena.

And another thing... : The case for the defence

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:09:55 +0000

Completely agree, oldslaughter. I can see the possibility that holding someone for two days could uncover much that holding them for one wouldn't - although there is an argument you shouldn't hold anyone until you have enough to charge them, but we'll skip that for now. Each extra day you hold someone reduces the possibility of finding new evidence on that day exponentially (logarithmically?) and on that basis how do you justify 90 rather than 89? Why not 365? We have simple privacy programs that would take decades to crack using the best decryption tools available, why not simply hold people until they give us the password? Oh wait, you've already made withholding the password a separate charge... And it's the terrorists who 'hate us for our freedoms'? Could have fooled me.

And another thing... : Iraq rears its head again

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:19:05 +0000

"The truth, surely, is that foreign policy should be formulated, not ... after assessing the likelihood of provoking acts of domestic terrorism, but on the principles of whether a policy is right or not." Well, no! Regardless of how 'right' your infallible moral judgement might be, the safety of people in our own country must be at least a part of any decision made by government, surely? Also, I'd like to point out that more money does not equal less terrorism. It is very important what the money is spent on - look at the US after 9/11 it threw money at new departments and they wasted billions of dollars being not at all effective.