|
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2021 8:02:07 GMT
I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. i understand no one was hurt in the accident in question, but don't know if a second car was involved and, if so, whether Seed could know they didn't need assistance. That he could have received jail under the law but not under the sentencing guidelines seems to indicate that there was no such issue and we're dealing only with property damage (and reckless endangerment of everybody else on the road, admittedly). That doesn't meet my standards of "moral turpitude". That misses a couple of obvious black marks for Mr Seed; that he drove away from the accident, therefore continued to drive whilst under the influence and unfit to drive. It would appear there was another vehicle involved as he was prosecuted for not exchanging details, therefore by not remaining on scene and exchanging details does suggest an attempt to avoid being found on scene, possibly to avoid being breathalysed, |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 8:11:12 GMT
Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. But FPTP is nothing of the sort. The "winner" can have only 25% of the vote in a 3-way marginal (with a couple of independents and the like thrown in)> The most popular is not always the winner. And you know that is true. The winner is the candidate gaining one vote more than any other candidate and his proportion of the total poll doesn't matter one whit and 'we all know that to be true'! After all why worry if the winner 'wins' on only 27% of the poll when two thirds of the electorate did not vote at all? Why on your opinion would the 'most popular' not win? And why would that matter even if true? And I do not believe it to be true anyway. And I do not care at all if it is true. The winner is, and should always be, he whom achieves the most votes in a sole and simple poll. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 8:43:53 GMT
… Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. There are various good and bad arguments for and against FPTP and/or various other systems, but “the candidate who gets the most votes wins” is one of the silliest and weakest. “The candidate(s) who get(s) the most votes win(s)” is what happens in FPTP, SV, AV, STV, AMS, and list systems. Not at all. It is the only argument that makes any sense at all. The 'candidate who gets the most votes' can only apply to FPTP. All the other systems are elaborate designs to ensure that the candidate getting a simple majority after the count 'does not win'!! And we all know that to be the stark gerrymandering truth. Conservatives are and always have been best at gaining a simple majority in more seats than any other party can. Therefore all forms of voting other than the simple and obvious FPTP are suggested to defeat the Conservatives and to defeat fairness because other parties are tired of losing so often. There is no valid reason for any other voting system than FPTP, as in all races and competitions. We all KNOW this but none other than Conservatives can't stand the heat in a real kitchen. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 8:48:38 GMT
It does look like a lot of transfers from Labour and Lib Dem must have gone to each other, which has got the Conservatives over the line. Stupid system. If you have a preference system it needs to allow people to make more than 2 choices. "The cost of holding the election again was estimated at more than £1 million." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58282141Of course!! Any properly designed system has to afford multiple choices of voting by more and more igenious methods until the correct result is achieved. And that result has to be the defeat of the Conservative and if they are not defeated many of you will 'Squeem and squeem until you are thick'!! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 9:13:06 GMT
Probably more justification for banning ex-rozzers from standing than people who managed in their misspent youth to get convicted of some trivial offence that did not involve moral turpitude. I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. No!! It was trivial and involved no injuries or other persons. It was a very long time ago. And that phrase? 'Gross Moral Turpitude'!! Love it. The resonance. I don't think so do you? If he had been caught with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand, white powder on his nostrills, his other hand up the skirt of the vicar's wife ................... Then perhaps (?) turpitude raises an eyebrow together with a bit of deserved respect. This was a damn fool by-election because the rules were drawn up in a silly manner. I blame civil servants and parliamentary lawyers. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 31,086
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 21, 2021 9:27:37 GMT
But the government went along with those "silly" rules quite happily, and (maybe more to the point) did nothing to change them after the problems with the legislation became clear in the original 2012 round of these elections. So they are at least as culpable I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 9:29:53 GMT
But the government went along with those "silly" rules quite happily, and (maybe more to the point) did nothing to change them after the problems with the legislation became clear in the original 2012 round of these elections. So they are at least as culpable I would say. One cannot disagree with that. I imagine they will be altered now. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Aug 21, 2021 9:44:23 GMT
But the government went along with those "silly" rules quite happily, and (maybe more to the point) did nothing to change them after the problems with the legislation became clear in the original 2012 round of these elections. So they are at least as culpable I would say. One cannot disagree with that. I imagine they will be altered now. Of course they'll be altered, now that a Conservative has been affected. 'Twas ever thus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 9:51:28 GMT
Of course!! Any properly designed system has to afford multiple choices of voting by more and more igenious methods until the correct result is achieved. And that result has to be the defeat of the Conservative and if they are not defeated many of you will 'Squeem and squeem until you are thick'!! Conservatives are elected across Scotland, local and Parliament, because of alternative voting systems. |
|
|
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2021 9:52:39 GMT
One cannot disagree with that. I imagine they will be altered now. Of course they'll be altered, now that a Conservative has been affected. 'Twas ever thus. Surely it would be the opposite, altering to benefit their own candidates and knobbling their opponents? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 10:11:25 GMT
Of course!! Any properly designed system has to afford multiple choices of voting by more and more igenious methods until the correct result is achieved. And that result has to be the defeat of the Conservative and if they are not defeated many of you will 'Squeem and squeem until you are thick'!! Conservatives are elected across Scotland, local and Parliament, because of alternative voting systems. Far more often it is despite the iniquitous alternative system. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 21, 2021 10:23:51 GMT
I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. No!! It was trivial and involved no injuries or other persons. It was a very long time ago. And that phrase? 'Gross Moral Turpitude'!! Love it. The resonance. I don't think so do you? If he had been caught with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand, white powder on his nostrills, his other hand up the skirt of the vicar's wife ................... Then perhaps (?) turpitude raises an eyebrow together with a bit of deserved respect. This was a damn fool by-election because the rules were drawn up in a silly manner. I blame civil servants and parliamentary lawyers. The MT phrase came from 𝖭𝖾𝖺𝗍𝗁 𝖶𝖾𝗌𝗍 -it's not a phrase I would use as it used to be the sole grounds for dismissal in my area of employment! And nobody suggested it was "gross", but I did think it was more than "trivial "just because by sheer good luck nobody got killed or injured. As I said in my original post it was a long time ago and probably should have been time limited, and I agree the fact that it wasn't was probably down to incompetent parliamentary draughtsmanship. Actually I would regard the offence itself more seriously than any hand up skirt of some hypothetical vicar's wife. Maybe he should have been able to -voluntarily- declare it to his potential electors and let them decide whether it was trivial or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 21, 2021 10:29:54 GMT
Howard Kirk came up with a useful practical definition of "gross moral turpitude" if you remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2021 10:39:43 GMT
No!! It was trivial and involved no injuries or other persons. It was a very long time ago. And that phrase? 'Gross Moral Turpitude'!! Love it. The resonance. I don't think so do you? If he had been caught with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand, white powder on his nostrills, his other hand up the skirt of the vicar's wife ................... Then perhaps (?) turpitude raises an eyebrow together with a bit of deserved respect. This was a damn fool by-election because the rules were drawn up in a silly manner. I blame civil servants and parliamentary lawyers. The MT phrase came from 𝖭𝖾𝖺𝗍𝗁 𝖶𝖾𝗌𝗍 -it's not a phrase I would use as it used to be the sole grounds for dismissal in my area of employment! And nobody suggested it was "gross", but I did think it was more than "trivial "just because by sheer good luck nobody got killed or injured. As I said in my original post it was a long time ago and probably should have been time limited, and I agree the fact that it wasn't was probably down to incompetent parliamentary draughtsmanship. Actually I would regard the offence itself more seriously than any hand up skirt of some hypothetical vicar's wife. Maybe he should have been able to -voluntarily- declare it to his potential electors and let them decide whether it was trivial or not. If we take Andrew’s Preview as a guide the conviction is indeed spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but Police and Crime Commissioners are specifically excluded from said Act. The legislation governing PCCs (another grotesque legacy of the Coalition) was, unlike other electoral legislation, drawn up by the Home Office and creates a number of anomalies - for example Mr Seed was re-elected to Wiltshire Council on 6 May where his conviction provides no impediment to him serving. IIRC he has also been a PPC, and would have been eligible to serve in the Commons. It does therefore appear that the problem is electoral legislation being drawn up by people with no expertise or experience in the field. One other thing that’s seemingly slipped this thread’s attention - Wiltshire Police issued a statement yesterday saying they were seeking the advice of the CPS on an issue surrounding the original election - could Mr Seed be in strife for his signed declaration submitted with his nomination that there was no impediment to him serving as P&CC? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 21, 2021 10:57:44 GMT
The disqualifications for being a PCC were deliberately drawn to be a lot stricter on criminal convictions, because we don't want a situation where a crime boss manages to win the post and uses it to corrupt ends. In the Bill as originally introduced the local government provisions were proposed - disqualified if has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, whether or not suspended, within the last five years. That probably was too lax and there was pressure from opposition MPs to make it stricter: a Labour amendment proposed to drop the "three months or longer" bit. It was changed in the Committee stage on 8 February 2011. The debate clearly shows MPs did understand what it meant: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/policereform/110208/pm/110208s01.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Aug 21, 2021 12:13:24 GMT
Of course they'll be altered, now that a Conservative has been affected. 'Twas ever thus. Surely it would be the opposite, altering to benefit their own candidates and knobbling their opponents? Several potential candidates have been caught out by this rule in the past - Simon Weston, for instance. There now seems to be a clamour for change now that a Conservative has been caught out by it and that the process got as far as an election. The same with the electoral system used. From the 2nd preference votes it's clear that the Tories stand more to lose than to gain, so they're going to change it to FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 13:40:06 GMT
The MT phrase came from 𝖭𝖾𝖺𝗍𝗁 𝖶𝖾𝗌𝗍 -it's not a phrase I would use as it used to be the sole grounds for dismissal in my area of employment! And nobody suggested it was "gross", but I did think it was more than "trivial "just because by sheer good luck nobody got killed or injured. As I said in my original post it was a long time ago and probably should have been time limited, and I agree the fact that it wasn't was probably down to incompetent parliamentary draughtsmanship. Actually I would regard the offence itself more seriously than any hand up skirt of some hypothetical vicar's wife. Maybe he should have been able to -voluntarily- declare it to his potential electors and let them decide whether it was trivial or not. If we take Andrew’s Preview as a guide the conviction is indeed spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but Police and Crime Commissioners are specifically excluded from said Act. The legislation governing PCCs (another grotesque legacy of the Coalition) was, unlike other electoral legislation, drawn up by the Home Office and creates a number of anomalies - for example Mr Seed was re-elected to Wiltshire Council on 6 May where his conviction provides no impediment to him serving. IIRC he has also been a PPC, and would have been eligible to serve in the Commons. It does therefore appear that the problem is electoral legislation being drawn up by people with no expertise or experience in the field. One other thing that’s seemingly slipped this thread’s attention - Wiltshire Police issued a statement yesterday saying they were seeking the advice of the CPS on an issue surrounding the original election - could Mr Seed be in strife for his signed declaration submitted with his nomination that there was no impediment to him serving as P&CC? Yet more gormless nit-picking piffle. What a stupid ragbag of a country this has become. |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 27,035
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Aug 21, 2021 13:40:42 GMT
Of course!! Any properly designed system has to afford multiple choices of voting by more and more igenious methods until the correct result is achieved. And that result has to be the defeat of the Conservative and if they are not defeated many of you will 'Squeem and squeem until you are thick'!! I wasn't saying I like preferential systems in general, just that if you do have one the type being used for these elections with just two preferences is the worst possible variation of it. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 13:49:28 GMT
The disqualifications for being a PCC were deliberately drawn to be a lot stricter on criminal convictions, because we don't want a situation where a crime boss manages to win the post and uses it to corrupt ends. In the Bill as originally introduced the local government provisions were proposed - disqualified if has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, whether or not suspended, within the last five years. That probably was too lax and there was pressure from opposition MPs to make it stricter: a Labour amendment proposed to drop the "three months or longer" bit. It was changed in the Committee stage on 8 February 2011. The debate clearly shows MPs did understand what it meant: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/policereform/110208/pm/110208s01.pdfBut of course it only picks up this sort of nit-picking nerking dross. Any well organised serious criminal would be sweaky clean and very careful to say and do the 'right' thing. This is just more gormless fuckwittedness and what we may expect from politics instead of policies and decisions. Welcome to it moderniser alt.wokes. Just what you always wanted. Form and no function. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Don't vote. It only encourages them.
Posts: 37,214
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 21, 2021 13:57:39 GMT
Centralising power over policing in one individual is the problem.
|
|
