Glitter jailed for 3 years (but now heading back)

[Fop 1]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

[Happy Face 29]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

[Guest alex]

Putting aside the conspiracy theories reactive legislation based on the media furore over a single, high-profile case rarely seems like a good idea.

[Fop 1]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

[Guest alex]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

[Fop 1]

Putting aside the conspiracy theories reactive legislation based on the media furore over a single, high-profile case rarely seems like a good idea.

 

 

Well it depends on the goal. But yes for anyone outside of Westminster it usually isn't a good idea.

[Fop 1]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

[Guest alex]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

I honestly don't know what you're saying there. You're on about a change in the law, yes? That is the job of legislative bodies, isn't it? Rather than courts, who make rulings based on the law. That was why I wasn't sure what point you were making.

[Fop 1]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

I honestly don't know what you're saying there. You're on about a change in the law, yes? That is the job of legislative bodies, isn't it? Rather than courts, who make rulings based on the law. That was why I wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

Yes if there's a pressing need for it, with thought, time and debate (none of which are present in any of Labours rush and push jobs).

Not because one high profile person happens to be getting a lot of media attention and they need to be seen to be doing (for a couple of reasons).

[Happy Face 29]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

I honestly don't know what you're saying there. You're on about a change in the law, yes? That is the job of legislative bodies, isn't it? Rather than courts, who make rulings based on the law. That was why I wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

Yes if there's a pressing need for it, with thought, time and debate (none of which are present in any of Labours rush and push jobs).

Not because one high profile person happens to be getting a lot of media attention and they need to be seen to be doing (for a couple of reasons).

 

ASBOs took the best part of a year to get the go ahead didn't they?

 

What have their other rush jobs been? I thought all of their legislation changes went to a vote in commons.

 

As I'm sure this will, if it even gets that far.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

I honestly don't know what you're saying there. You're on about a change in the law, yes? That is the job of legislative bodies, isn't it? Rather than courts, who make rulings based on the law. That was why I wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

Yes if there's a pressing need for it, with thought, time and debate (none of which are present in any of Labours rush and push jobs).

Not because one high profile person happens to be getting a lot of media attention and they need to be seen to be doing (for a couple of reasons).

So it is the job of legislative bodies? Which the Commons and the Executive/Cabinet are, yes? Still don't know what point you were making in that case. Agree about not rushing stuff but I already made that point, more or less.

I actually agree with you generally though, paedophiles along with terrorism is an area that captures the medias attention to the degree in which a storm is whipped-up and sensible debate (and civil rights etc.) goes out of the window. I'm not standing up for the rights of either of those two before someone accuses me of that, by the way. It's a wider point about how laws can be pushed through without proper consideration for their wider implications by scaremongering.

[Fop 1]

The thing that is interesting about this in a wider sense is that Labour (probably not surprisingly given it's their usual reaction) are now talking about rushed sweeping legislation on denial of travel.

 

Which like ASBO's, terror laws and most everything else they charge through will soon enough be used for things far from their supposedly intended targets.

 

Not sure how "sweeping" it is, if it's only going to apply to convicted paedophiles.

 

It's pretty sweeping even if it is (courts are there to determine that sort of thing, not legislative bodies, and certainly NOT headline grabbing ministers with one eye on a leadership election), but with the way they legislate it'll be undoubtedly used in ways it wasn' "supposed" to be used in.

Pardon?

Only for those that donate enough to the election campaign.

I honestly don't know what you're saying there. You're on about a change in the law, yes? That is the job of legislative bodies, isn't it? Rather than courts, who make rulings based on the law. That was why I wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

Yes if there's a pressing need for it, with thought, time and debate (none of which are present in any of Labours rush and push jobs).

Not because one high profile person happens to be getting a lot of media attention and they need to be seen to be doing (for a couple of reasons).

 

ASBOs took the best part of a year to get the go ahead didn't they?

 

What have their other rush jobs been? I thought all of their legislation changes went to a vote in commons.

 

As I'm sure this will, if it even gets that far.

 

What hasn't been a rush job? With Labours majority the Commons is slightly irrelevent (not so much now, but up until recently). The Lords is the only place that can slow it down, but the use of the Parliament Act (labour has used it 3 times since 1999, it's only been used 7 time since it first came into existence in 1911 or threat of use has largely nixed that (one reason why an elected House of Lord would be nice as it could be given it's teeth back).

 

Then look at labours legislation rate, definitely quantity over quality.

 

ASBO's are a good example as they were "supposedly" rather targeted things to combat specific issues, within a few years it's hard to find anything that they are NOT being used for....... would they have got through parliament if today's use has been the intended use? Maybe not.

 

Same with most of the anti-terror legislation, even Labour die-hards might have voted against the Government if they'd knew then what they know now.

 

And the worrying thing about DNA legislation and biometric legislation (MPs will probably just vote to make themselves exempt).

 

 

 

 

 

The big issue here though is what is the point? Besides grabbing the headlines? What purpose does a sweeping mandatory ban have over the current system?

[Guest alex]

The worst rush job of the lot was the decision to help the US invade Iraq.

[Fop 1]

So it is the job of legislative bodies? Which the Commons and the Executive/Cabinet are, yes? Still don't know what point you were making in that case.

Because this case smacks of a mandatory ban (when they can be banned judicially anyway) for a specific case, that is "legislative justice", or rather seen to be doing "justice". That's not what a legislative body is there to do (and if there is a case for change, then a good long think and debate is necessary).

 

It's also slightly iffy because of the whole foot in the door issue with legislation.

 

Agree about not rushing stuff but I already made that point, more or less.

Well I disagree now.

 

I actually agree with you generally though, paedophiles along with terrorism is an area that captures the medias attention to the degree in which a storm is whipped-up and sensible debate (and civil rights etc.) goes out of the window. I'm not standing up for the rights of either of those two before someone accuses me of that, by the way. It's a wider point about how laws can be pushed through without proper consideration for their wider implications by scaremongering.

 

If only some Peadoterrorists would appear, political wet dream.

[Guest alex]

This is shades of Brass Eye.

[Guest alex]

Because this case smacks of a mandatory ban (when they can be banned judicially anyway) for a specific case, that is "legislative justice", or rather seen to be doing "justice". That's not what a legislative body is there to do (and if there is a case for change, then a good long think and debate is necessary).

 

It's also slightly iffy because of the whole foot in the door issue with legislation.

That's just you disagreeing with this though. It's still their job/remit. I see what you mean though.

[Fop 1]

This is shades of Brass Eye.

 

 

 

Because this case smacks of a mandatory ban (when they can be banned judicially anyway) for a specific case, that is "legislative justice", or rather seen to be doing "justice". That's not what a legislative body is there to do (and if there is a case for change, then a good long think and debate is necessary).

 

It's also slightly iffy because of the whole foot in the door issue with legislation.

That's just you disagreeing with this though. It's still their job/remit. I see what you mean though.

Well I don't think you'd get many politicians agreeing that it was, if asked in a certain environment. Of course equally in other environments they'd probably publicly back legislation allowing MPs to personally summarily execute criminals/football teams/paediatricians if there were enough votes in it.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

I know you'll say 'read my sig' or something but you've lost me again.

[Fop 1]

I know you'll say 'read my sig' or something but you've lost me again.

That if you asked most politicians in a more philosophical/intellectual environment they probably say it wasn't.

But if you asked them in a heated emotional environment they may say it was.

 

Which is politics in essence really.

[Guest alex]

I know you'll say 'read my sig' or something but you've lost me again.

That if you asked most politicians in a more philosophical/intellectual environment they probably say it wasn't.

But if you asked them in a heated emotional environment they may say it was.

 

Which is politics in essence really.

Could you just explain what you're on about though?

[Fop 1]

Director of children's rights organisation End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children (Ecpat) UK, Christine Beddoe, told BBC News ministers should do more to force other convicted British sex offenders living abroad to return.

 

She said: "There are dozens of other convicted British sex offenders who are avoiding all this because they simply don't come back to the UK.

 

"You know the fuss is expected, I suppose, because of his celebrity, but I really hope the government takes some notice and brings back to the UK all the other convicted sex offenders who are living freely in other countries around the world".

 

 

This is quite interesting too, as mentioned I don't know how they'd manage it legally, but I think they'd get public backing for it (well until the public realised they'd have to live next door to them anyway).

Edited August 22, 2008 by Fop