Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

Something of huge significance happened at the weekend. Israel formally rejected Trump's Plan for Peace in Gaza. What's so significant about that? It is the first time Israel has ever officially torpedoed an agreed Middle Eastern peace plan.

On every occasion before this, they have signed up, confident they can torpedo it later when everyone's moved on. And has been successful in doing so each time. So why not this time?

It is true Netanyahu has run into a storm of criticism at home and, the Israeli electorate having moved so far right, this jeopardises his chances at upcoming elections -- even supposing his coalition gets that far. But this is a very familiar situation and hitherto everyone who counts has understood it will get torpedoed in the fullness of time.

No, it appears to be sheer overconfident brazenness. They think they're untouchable, and they may be right. But I think there's a fair chance Trump will strike back. Hard.

[Mick Harper]

Andy Burnham is on another one of his meet-the-people campaigns. I hope we're not going to have three years of 'anywhere but Downing Street' government. I thought that's what we didn't elect him for, to bring a bit of sense and sensibility to Westminster.

But anyway, this week it's 'the high street'. He's going on about 'dodgy barber shops'. In my day the only thing dodgy about them was it was where you got your dobbers from. 'Ahem, anything for the weekend, sir?' being the opening gambit. Now, apparently, they're fronts for organised crime. This may be so but at least we do need to get our hair cut.

It's the 'nail bars' that I am dubious about. The prevalence of them on the high street is what people were remarking on, not too many hairdressers. What their true purpose is I cannot say. Married women after some decent nookie, I would think.

If they did toenails I might pay a visit myself. 'Just a trim, please.' Like we always said at the barber's. Not that we ever got one, the butchering bastards. It was short, back and sides like everyone else. Good to hear they're just mafiosi now.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Andy Burnham is storing up dreadful troubles for himself.

* He inherited the Early Release scheme, for which he bears no responsibility, directly or indirectly.
* He accepts that some kind of Early Release scheme is necessary.
* He has also inherited the furore about which categories of prisoners should be released, dealing with it is his responsibility.
* He keeps chopping and changing to assuage one furore or another.

He will find that democratic government at the national level is largely a matter of dealing satisfactorily with furores arising from the actions of the national government. This demands two different balancing acts:

1. (A) Effective government policies create furores
1. (B) Avoiding effective policies creates the impression of a weak government.

2. (A) Changing government polices assuages furores
2. (B) Changing government policies gives the impression of a weak government.

[Mick Harper]

Following a discussion with a Washington insider, I should make it clear this does not necessarily mean democracies will have weak governments. A non-weak government--I won't say a good government--will propose effective polices, those effective policies will cause furores, but the furores will not lead to changes in government policy.

Non-weak prime ministers will stand four-square at the lectern saying things like, 'You turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning.' *

* For younger members, 'you turn' is a homonym of 'U-turn', a then popular idiom denoting a reversal of government policy. The phrase 'the lady's not for turning' is a play on the title of Christopher Fry’s 1948 verse comedy, The Lady's Not for Burning.

[Mick Harper]

On a more sombre note, I learned an additional and critical detail on Newsnight about the event that started this particular furore, the policeman dragged to his death by fleeing thieves.

It turns out that the passengers, who were juveniles at the time, were quite unaware that PC Harper was still attached to the car. Even the driver was probably unaware--if 'he must have been able to tell from his foot pressing on the accelerator' is anything to go by.

Now I understand all about the legal doctrine of 'joint enterprise' and that carrying out one criminal act puts one in jeopardy for other criminal acts arising from it, however incidental they may be, but for Chrissake why were the two passengers serving thirteen years in the first place?

As someone on the programme pointed out, 'If they'd got roaring drunk and mowed down PC Harper, they wouldn't have got anything like that.'

[Wile E. Coyote]

Not so. Justin Clarke-Samuel, 41, was recently sentenced at the Old Bailey to 12 years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 17 years after pleading guilty to causing the death of 20-year-old Yubin Tamang by dangerous driving, and a further count of dangerous driving prior to that fatal collision.

Justin had been drinking that night and was drunk and driving well over the speed limit at 60 MPH along a residential road so should have been doing 30 MPH. Yubin was trying to cross the road.

The three individuals convicted for the manslaughter of PC Harper, were regularly engaged with robberies, to entice the police into "Fast and Furious" chases. In Wileys view it is highly likley that they knew that PC Harper was attatached to the tow rope as they stopped mid chase to disengage said rope. I accept that intention was not proved. What was proved was that, they had planned the whole robbery of the Quad Bike, going to a property and brandishing a large axe, three crowbars and a hammer, to ensure the house occupant phoned the police. They had by then already altered their Getaway vehicle, so its break lights were not working, in preperation for the chase. They were driving away 60 MPH on country roads. Its obvious that the passengers and driver knew, (even if they didnt realise a body was attatched) that this was illegal and quite likely to cause death or injury, as its actually pretty difficult to drive over 25 on winding unlit English country roads in the dark. They clearly knew that but they wanted the buzz of the chase.

Totally deserved sentence. Nasty robbery with intimidation, approached by Police, did not stop, as wanted the buzz of a dangerous high speed chase, knew that it was highly dangerous, showed no remorse after the death of the responder.

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]

You are missing the point that the jury convicted all three individuals for manslaughter, the judge has to then sentence on that basis of protecting the public, as well as mitigation.

I get it you want to take a liberal approach, but the judge has to protect the public as well.

Its clear all three are engaging in behaviours that put responders and the general public at very high risk, already a police officer has died, and they have showed no remorse.

This was not a unlucky accident. Their ongoing behaviours were always likley to cause a death or serious injury. eg They could have driven into an oncoming police car or knocked down a dog walker or a cyclist, or even killed themselves by driving into a tree etc.

This was criminal behaviour, a planned burglary, aggravated (by the use of weapons), they did not stop when the police approached, as planned as they wanted a dangerous chase, they have all committed manslaughter, shown no remorse and had a high chance of reoffending.

The judge has to take this into account as well as any mitigation, like they were minors. The Juge actually reduced their sentence for that, if the three were older they would rightly have received higher sentences.

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]