Rayvin

I would also add that whether they voted for it or not, we democratically decided to make the country poorer. That impacts all of us. This is just a way that it will now impact them. No one escapes Brexit induced poverty whether they deserve it or not.

In fairness, I don't consider JOB to be a very honest debater most of the time in general and I do agree with your point there. It feels like the guy is basically saying that if the value of his land is over the threshold he's going to have to summon up a large amount of money from essentially nowhere against a 30k pa wage in order to keep it 'as is'. So I do sort of understand that. I would argue perhaps a better way of doing this would be to tax it at point of sale. Whenever the land is sold, it is taxed an appropriate level to compensate for having avoided inheritance tax. That said, Labour seem to be arguing that this isn't going to impact the vast majority of farmers so I'm not sure if this bloke would even be affected.

I can't help but feel that farmers sort of deserve whatever this is about after Brexit... but this one at least seems fucking angry

Absolutely spot on.

I'd prefer you didn't go mate, if that's worth anything. Even I get piled on in politics chat sometimes - that said, it's worth understanding that most of this forum is made up of lefties who are fucking angry at the world. Whether you agree or not, our vision of how things are is intensely bleak and getting worse by the day.

Normally I don't think I'd bother but I didn't have TDS down as this sort of poster - and I felt that maybe it was an honest enquiry and that perhaps some resistance to Musk's bullshit might be all that was needed. I fail to appreciate of course that everyone already has their opinion set in stone before anything is said. I was kind of interested myself in why it had happened though.

That's not me arguing this issue. That's me earnestly wanting an asteroid to wipe me out before Musk's banal idiocy ruins the entire Western world. Maybe I can find a hotel to be burned alive in the next time the sub 80 IQs gather.

Kill me now. We're all fucking doomed.

Mate, I've really tried but you're not interested in my reasoning. Fair enough, but you've got nothing to say on this in response other than refusing to acknowledge this issue on the level of detail that would be necessary to form any sort of judgement. So I'm done with this now.

The one on the shorter sentence is being released apparently - from what I can see he didn't actually carry out the violence which is presumably why. He got the manslaughter charge seemingly because he supplied the weapon to the guy who did (the longer sentence). That's my reading of it anyway. Why the fuck I've spent so much time on this is beyond me, but what is clear is that there are a lot of details to this that Musk and friends are willfully ignoring to be able to whip up hysteria.

If it was that simple, I would say no. But then I don't consider it that simple whatsoever, so again, I feel the question isn't relevant. Two months for inciting a riot that could have led to people being killed and mass violence if strong action wasn't taken (and those people were warned in real time but continued their stupidity anyway) versus a teenager stabbing a guy in the hand during a scuffle between two gangs (where the perpetrator's gang was the one being pursued) and unfortunately nicking a major blood vessel. Taking all the details out makes it sound bad, but honestly isn't a remotely fair way of interpreting it. It lacks all context. EDIT - actually the more i look at it, the more I feel like the guy who is being released was only actually responsible for sourcing the machete, not the actual killing blow or associated violence. I'm not positive on that but it appears to be what the court notes are saying. So it's 6 months for buying a machete that he knew would likely be used in violence.

But for the record, I trust the judges to know what is right or not based on their experience interpreting the law, and not random people on the internet with no information/evidence/data about it.

The fact that you're posing that question to me after everything I just wrote indicates to me that you're operating ideologically and not with interest in the facts of the matter. Why is your question relevant? A judge in 2024 sentenced this man with a specific ruling that while it was manslaughter, it was the lowest form of GBH possible because he stabbed him in the hand/wrist with no intent at all to kill. Then Labour release lower violence offenders which, on the judge's original decision, happens to include this guy. On a technicality. Now explain to me why your question, which seems to imply that Labour are actively responsible for both decisions, is relevant?

And this level of effort is beyond right wing media, Elon bellend Musk, and associated right wing asshats.

Right, I went and looked into it for you. This is the Labour policy: The government is releasing 1,100 more prisoners early, as part of its emergency plan to ease overcrowding in jails in England and Wales. Offenders serving more than five years are being released on licence after spending 40% of their time behind bars, a scheme that excludes those convicted of serious violence, sex crimes and terrorism. Taken from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly6y67dkpzo And here is the sentencing logic for the guy released, by the judge at the time, back in January while this was still a Tory government: "Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or GBH which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender. It is argued on behalf of you, Natty, that your culpability falls somewhere on the cusp of categories C and D and that an appropriate starting point should be chosen. Whilst the jury rejected Neto’s defence of self-defence, they equally rejected the Prosecution notion that the south group laid in wait for the north group in Clumber Street North/ Brunel Terrace so as to ambush two by six. It is suggested that the evidence supports a conclusion that the north group was armed and in pursuit of the south group and justifies a finding that this was “death caused in defence of self or others where not amounting to a defence” and the categorisation is in D - lower culpability. Whilst I accept the prosecution assessment in your case, Neto, because I am sure that in stabbing Gordon Gault through the arm, you had an intention to cause harm falling just short of GBH and it carried a high risk of grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been known to you, different considerations apply to you, Natty, on the basis of your conviction" This is from the court notes: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Natty-and-Neto-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf So what Labour have done is pass a blanket rule which, I think you'd agree is meant to cover violent offenders, right? It specifically excludes them. And in this case, per the judge's ruling, the guy being released fell just under the threshold for it to be classed as GBH. So it's a technicality that has seen him released based on the original sentencing. It's not like he was handpicked by the government. Does this make sense? Just read a bit further... "Finally, I take into account the fact that, given you are a foreign national so that, on the face of it, the provisions for automatic deportation apply and there is therefore a prospect that, upon your release, you will be deported to Belgium. If this does occur, it will arguably be a greater punishment than any sentence I can impose on you." Again, you can take issue with the judge for this if you want..but not Labour.

You are aware that the people posting bad words on the internet were supporting having scores of people burned alive in a building right?

You should take it up with the Tories but I would wager that the case was more complex than the any of the halfwits reacting to it have made clear.

If by true you mean the prisons were neglected by the Tories to the point of extreme overcrowding, and this one lad who was jailed for manslaughter is getting out early as a result, (but the other guy who got 9 years is still in prison and doing the time) then yes.

I will admit that at this point I'm more about 'dying on my feet' than solving anything. I just hate losing to these bastards. Have you seen that there's an increasing amount of online hysteria about Labour locking up these rioters? Musk tweeting on it daily, the right wing influencers rallying around and accusing Labour of enforcing a police state.. that narrative is going to get traction I fear.

Much like Chamberlain, we cannot win this with appeasement. They are going to keep coming at us until there is nothing 'left'.

I absolutely detest Elon Musk. Forget Trump, Musk is rapidly becoming the danger. Apparently buying Twitter has paid off for him in all this as its made him the most powerful unelected bureaucrat in the world.

Do we reckon Barnes has been better for us than Maddison would have been in the end then? Not really followed Maddison since, did he turn out to be any good?

There will be free elections in 2028, the world hasn't gone that insane yet. And I'm not trying to draw any sort of equivalence, I'm simply saying that if Harris is being called a communist now, what more can they say about someone on the left of her? Like that "insult" can't go further than it already has, so I don't see what we'd lose that we aren't already losing.

Harris being called a communist actually opens the door to further left policies coming in. What are they gonna do, start branding people super communists? Same as the UK, if we're all Marxists no matter what, we have absolutely nothing to lose. We threw the word 'fascist' around until it lost all meaning and they embraced themselves anyway. Why would it be any different for us? Also I think that if we pushed the social left wing concepts less, and the economic ones more, we'd be doing better. I often feel like the moderate left placates us with social progress to avoid giving us economic progress, but the longer we go without it, the worse the situation gets.

All we know at this point is the centrists can't win without the left, and vice versa. The question I suppose is whether the 10m or so people who walked away because she wasn't offering anything productive (left wing enough) outnumber the people who would walk away from her if she did. In the end I've just had enough of cringing before the right like this, we should just die on our feet. We're dying either way.