Should ‘life’ mean ‘life’?

The question is raised by this article.

Further interesting questions arise,  if Direct Democracy is to mean anything:

  • if the people have indeed voted that ‘life should mean life’, then should it not be they who has the final decision on a possible ‘conditional release’? If not, why not?
  • Regardless of the crime, should a sentence not be served in full?
  • Should a Court be able to, in effect, change a decision of the people?
  • Does the will of politicians wishing to adhere to ‘human rights’, aided and abetted by the legal profession, outweigh the will of the people? If so, why should it?
  • Should the ‘State’ (and I include ‘pressure groups in all forms) be able to over-rule the will of the people? If so, why?
  • read more.....

    Liberty and Democracy

    If we, as people, want ‘liberty’ in order to make our own decisions that affect our life (and whose life is it, ours or that of  someone else) then we need to change our system of democracy in this country. Under representative democracy we cannot achieve either as those we elect are able to make decisions over which we have no say, ie control. Those that make our laws are not bound by any constraint in regard to which  they promise is that they will enact – think manifestos?

    As two examples, consider both smoking and recall of MPs. read more.....

    The ‘Rights’ state we are in

    I came across this tweet yesterday:

    Italy – and the United Kingdom

    The recent elections in Italy are, without doubt, a ‘turn-up for the book’; and who foresaw that coming?

    One of the first points I noticed is the general media labeling 5*Movement as maverick, populist and far-right, no doubt purely because they challenge the status-quo of political mediocrity which encapsulates the idea it is possible to be all things to all men.

    As with every decision by the electorate, wherein no party gains a majority, we now have a ‘bun-fight’ among Italian political leaders in their attempts to gain power.  read more.....

    Just for once Viv is right

    Brexiteers promised £350m a week to their citizens. Instead they have to pay billions of Euros…….They promised sovereignty. Instead the government is at the mercy of the DUP……….They promised to take control, instead they are spinning out of control……..I am saddened that the British people have fallen victim to political  crooks…….
    –  Vivienne Reding: EU Parllament

    In respect of the last emboldened bit; you and me both, Babe. Mind you what you elect is what you get. But as we did not elect you, or any of your ilk, perhaps we may as well ban elections – as the result seems similar?
    read more.....

    What is it with ‘Professors’?

    In this context I refer to this article and the statement:

    The UK has two choices, it argues: either it can sign up to membership of the single market with no say over its rules – the Norway option – or it can have a more run-of-the-mill deal that will impose significant restrictions on trade – the Canada option’.

    When will those who, having a ‘title’ and ‘profession’, have us believe they fully understand the subject on which they write? When will said people exhibit an understanding of the difference twixt full membership of the European Union and membership of EFTA/EEA? When will such people recognize that the origin of about 80%/90% of ‘EU law’ originates from UN bodies such as UNECE?
    read more.....

    A Constitutional Crisis?

    Having read Jeremy Corbyn’s speech of yesterday it had been my intention to write about it, however this particular load of verbal garbage has been admirably ‘taken apart’ by Richard North here. Richard North states that this speech puts Corbyn in exactly the same “have your cake and eat it” territory as the Conservatives – except that he has an entirely different means of achieving this magical state. Yup, he’s just put icing on it.

    As an aside, having listened to Michel Barnier’s press conference just after midday today Corbyn and his opposite number need to have a re-think about their strategy.
    read more.....

    HMY Britannia

    Currently on television is a programme about HMY Britannia – aka ‘The Queen’s Yacht’.

    As this article shows, it was the politicians of ‘the day’ (circa 1997) who made the decision and who subsequently regretted it. Little thought was given, it appears, to the fact that that vessel was the reason for many of the trade deals that were ‘done’ (again, read the aforementioned link).

    In this article, John Major is quoted as having said:

    During the early Nineties, the monarchy went through a very difficult time,’ Sir John Major explains. ‘Ask yourself this question: in the midst of the recession, with the British people facing economic hardship, how popular would it have been to announce a £50 million spend on a new yacht for the personal use of the Royal Family? How would that have been portrayed by the media?’ In any case, he argues, Britannia, which cost £11 million a year to run, had been designed for a long-gone era of ocean-going royal tours — and air travel had rendered her semi-redundant. ‘Would I, personally, have wished to retain her?’ he wonders out loud. ‘Of course I would. But one has to be pragmatic about such things. read more.....

    Whose life is it?

    When I moved this blog to a country that would allow me to become ‘more verbose’ in that  which I have wished to say/write, said decision was taken with the best of intentions.

    The fact that, since then, blogging has become a ‘tad sparse’ is that I appear to be wasting my efforts and breath where engaging with our political class, the media and commentariat are concerned.

    That all of them appear either to be ‘tone deaf’, or more importantly, do not wish to engage/listen to my views – and, boy have I tried, especially on  twitter – is a ‘given’, due to the silence where any response is concerned. read more.....

    Select Committees

    Following on from Richard North’s article in which he discusses the effectiveness of Select Committees; and from which:

    So often do we see this that we find select committees becoming repositories for misinformation – sharing half-truths and misconceptions and never getting to the bottom of the issues and contributing anything of value. Small wonder they are treated (as I am advised privately) with disdain by ministers and civil servants. If the system is to work at all, we need to see fundamental changes to it – and not just confined to the Brexit committee. In the past, we’ve had major reservations about the Defence Committee, which has proved just as inadequate in monitoring the MoD. One thing I would like to see is the end of the practice where MPs on the committee each take turns questioning witnesses. Instead, it be better if each committee appoints its own advocate (who might be a barrister) to conduct the oral sessions. The MPs would then act in a similar fashion to a judge (or jury). read more.....