Is it time for more Whole life sentences ?

Toko Black

That is why the laws have and are always evolving to further clarify and adapt both to continually improve their ability to represent the core principles as an ongoing and eternal process in general and with regards to new situations and scenarios they encounter.

It's much like the practice of medicine or television/communications broadcasting and reception.
We are forever attempting to improve the basic principles with what we have and know now, along with incorporating and adapting new innovations.
However the essential core principle for medicine ie to heal the sick or television to capture, broadcast, receive and display imagery as close to seeing it in person as possible is always still fundamentally the same.

We may have issues and challenges with private versus public health care, we may have capitalism leading to the rich being able to afford better medicines or communism where the lack of innovation and commercial progress has led to shortages.
We may not be able to cure all cancers, all diseases and illnesses, but the fundamental principle that doctors, nurses et al are all supposed to be focused on is to heal the sick, or what ever comparable terms and phrases you choose to use.

Equality before the law is the same - core principles that are attempted to be held to and met despite the challenges. The moment you start to choose what core principles you will follow and which you won't, then you are essentially making all those principles redundant and meaningless.

Sonic67

Nope.
Also nope. Numerous times I have written to my local MP even though I didn't vote for them. They are still your representative.
Children are potentally future voters.
They were democratically elected. You can't please all the people all the time. Nevertheless they are your elected representatives.
Everyone has a vote, your local MP is elected, different people have different views. You will always have a minority. You don't seem to understand how voting works, and worse wanted to remove it from some.

It is quite laughable you now want to stand up for minority views when you are the one who wanted to remove votes from those you deem unsuitable to vote....

I am pretty sure there are quite a few catholic, muslim and gay people who wouldn't get a vote under your "ideas." Yet now you'd speak up for them?

Sonic67

Equality of having a voting is the same - core principles that are attempted to be held to and met despite the challenges. The moment you start to choose what core principles you will follow and which you won't, then you are essentially making all those principles redundant and meaningless.

See?

tapzilla2k

It's a lot more difficult to register to vote when you are homeless, if the application to register to vote fails then you simply do not get a vote. So until you are registered to vote, technically speaking Politicians don't have to worry about what people think as they have no way of influencing an election. Once you are registered to vote, then you matter.

Sonic67

It's a lot harder to anything at all if you are completely homeless. I'm pretty sure that would be the least of your worries.

If at some point you do end up in some kind of shelter then you can use that and would perhaps then vote accordingly.

Toko Black

You can write to your MP even if you didn't or couldn't vote.
Your MP does not have to treat your issue with equal merit to everyone else's  - if your issue is contradictory to manifesto pledges or in direct contradiction to the MP or other voters positions on an issue.

If your MP and or the party they represent had a manifesto pledge to ban wellington boots what happens when you write a letter raising the issue of wanting to buy or sell wellington boots ?
Does the MP suddenly change their mind and start campaigning to support you ?

What if you want dogs banned from the local woodland trail and write to your MP to raise the issue yet an equal or greater amount of other people write to the MP to oppose the ban ?

Not being able to vote doesn't change in any way your ability to write to your local MP regardless.

Here are the differences:

A minority view is not the same as a minority right.
A member of a minority does not get to dictate to other people how they should live their lives, but equally the majority doesn't either where it is in conflict with treating people equally.
Equality before the law means that the laws should apply and be applied equally to everyone regardless of their status.

I don't support 'minority views' or stand up for them, nor necessarily stand against them.
To me views should be supported on their merit, not the number of people holding them.
However, I do support the right to not be treated unfairly or differently simply because someone is a minority - and I support the principles having a framework to keep that protection sacrosanct from the majority.

I would like a system in which voters can only vote if they actually understand the basics of what they are voting for.
However, I do not WANT the system to change to only allow votes from those competent enough to vote.
It is a utopian ideal - either everyone can vote because they all learn and understand the basics, or a completely fair, unbiased and free from human error system restricts those that don't on a perfect test.
If that is not possible (which we all know isn't) then we don't implement it.

However, what that has to do with the wanting to take the life of someone who no longer poses a threat because they are detained, I do not know - maybe we should leave this tangent and get back to the actual topic of discussion

simonblue

Another one,serve just 14 years for a brutal murder,let out to do it again

'I sat across the table from Mum's killer'

Sonic67

At present all are members of the constituency and potential voters.

As it's a secret ballot the MP has no idea if you voted for them or will vote for them.


If there is sufficient feedback at a grass routes level it can cause change. The reason why MPs keep the voting corridors rather than have electronic voting is that MPs end up queing with cabinet members. While queing they can pass on directly any issues.
Provide evidence of job losses, have petitions, demonstrations, media campaigns and numerous other ways and you can change policy. If there isn't sufficient interest then you won't.  Which is how it should be. If something affects a lot of people then things change. If they don't it's less likely.
If there is sufficient interest and particularly if it's a marginal constituency then yes.
Then that's democracy.
You can write. You aren't important though. Out of those with a vote and those not, who gets priority?

tapzilla2k

An MP's first duty is to constituents (even ones who did not vote for the MP), then Parliament and then the political they are members of. Voting doesn't really come into it, once an MP is elected and doing the job.

Interesting interview in regards to the death penalty.