TE44

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DED5s1-Fe9FA&ved=0ahUKEwjl9-nU1LbUAhWEF8AKHS4iCEEQ3ywIHjAA&usg=AFQjCNHaT7tGvFgjb8XEdVssdunitloH7g Thanks red devil, goodbye weekend. Here goes.

Sam Cooke - A Change Is Gonna Come (Official Lyric Video) - ... Oops sorry don't know how to do it

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's highly unlikely that any more police officers > would have prevented the attacks the other day. > Even Diane's 250,000 extra officers wouldn't have > done that - greater intelligence service numbers > might have made a difference. > > I find it distasteful that immediately after the > atrocity that just happened, Labour supporters are > desperately trying to make political capital out > of such horrors by implying (without actually > saying) that reduced police numbers somehow > contributed to what happened. I think it is > disrespectful. > > It's also pretty shameful when you think that > Diane Abbott and John McDonnell were each recently > calling for MI5 to be disbanded. JM even called > for all armed police to be disbanded. Lucky he > didn't get his way before Saturday night. Here he > is... > > https://twitter.com/SCLV_UK/status/583702644738416 > 640/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F > %2F It's simple enough to find out what police think about the cuts outside of looking at what TM or JC stance is. It is distasteful labour supporters are being accused of desperately trying to make political capital out of the horrors.And doing it without Actually saying, what does that mean???? Disgusting.

He (JP) was like an infant defiantly not letting go of something to th point it had lost its meaning. Weird . I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about how our government acted unlawfully at dealing with detained fast tracking of asylum seekers. Both parties should have had the decency to put accross there position and the reality of the damage that was possibly done. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/rules-under-which-over-10000-fast-track-asylum-appeals-decided-declared-unlawful/

I think where the high court has made a ruling the Government have acted unlawful and beyond there power, causing lives to be put at risk, accountability and possibly criminal charges should be brought. Unfortunately often the Government will appeal, this often allows the law breaking to continue.

As it also told ruled against the Government Regarding air quality in 2015 but it took a judicial review to force them to react and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to delay again. It would be interesting to see how much it has cost Going through legal appeals to keep information from the public. Sorry off topic.

I believe Jaywalker you are speaking on the whole not simply the AG position. The so called justice system has always felt unfair to me, when looking at or bringing criminals to justice. Even when it was easier to a bring a judicial review against those who believe they are untouchable, there was A huge distance between understanding the injustices and the legal framework which often Government ministers themselves can remove themselves and leave it to the lawyers to battle out. Of course its not so easy (unless you have the money) to go down this line with a government that seems to be able to rule outside of there own laws.

Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should also have autonomy when reviews have have been too harsh. How long have the public had to go through AG office for review, i can't find anything regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding powers. Can you give a link please.

Yes thanks, that's what I thought. Jaywalker I was confused by your post. Isn't all The judiciary system political, I think you are assuming, where someone may understand this is part of this system this automatically attaches it with "justice". I'm sure the medical authorities who decide whether a convicted doctor may continue practising will go through a procedure that will be covered by legal boundaries, (the law is political). I think it should be more transparent in some cases after sentencing where the offenders are responsible for others especially children.

Doesn't the attorneys general office need to have a request from the public, can they ask for a review off there own backs?

Otta, I do believe cases should be looked at individually, hence why I attached link to doctors with substance abuse getting help. Where a crime has been committed involving violence,or where others have been at risk especially children, I find it very difficult to get my head round a decision being made to allow a doctor to practice who is on the sex register. I thinm this particular story has coincided with the paediatric Dulwich doctor convicted for sex offences and has Highlighted to me a system I find questionable. I am not assuming anyone supporting this woman supports every doctor, of course they are very different crimes. If information is given out, who knows, there may be many people like yourself Where it would not be a problem, I would not want a panel having the sole decision with certain criminals.

Jaywalker Anyone can ask for a review at if a lenient sentence has been given at a crown court, If they have been tried for a number of serious crimes. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review Drug/alcohol abuse is a common problem with doctors, where treatment programmes are set up. There is a big difference between someone recognising they have a problem and someone Having to face it because her freedom may be taken away. I think if doctors are practising after having been convicted it should be made public especially sex offenders. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/psychiatristssupportservice/drugandalcoholproblems.aspx?theme=mobile Oops forgot link

Well no worries for posters supporting the hundreds of doctors still practising after conviction including sex offenders. Who knows, there may be a terrible relationship that caused it. Otta I hope your child never needs to see a paediatrition and your faced with a doctor the GMC have decided to let practice again. But not to worry it won't you won't have a right to know.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For God's sake, she's a stupid kid. You may well > have been fully mature and together when you were > a student. You'd be the only one I'd ever heard > of. > > I very much doubt she'd be snorting coke before > going in to theatre when she qualifies. > > So judgemental J&B, I'm genuinely quite surprised. Otta There's having a little dabble with drugs/drink where it's confined to self abusive, Excepting people who care and worry for you. But it's a different level when your dabbling becomes a habit where you are using it as mitigating evidence for physically injuring someone.I'm with j&b I would not want her operating on me or my family unless given details of her past and assured she had recovered. And I would want it from her. As for the paediatrition doctor that was jailed recently for sex offences no I certainly wouldn't want him near my family.

Dan I don't think you're going to get any answers without speaking to school. I can't imagine a situation where the school asks another parent to take children whose parents/relatives have not turned up. Didn't your wife find this strange, sorry but I just don't get it.

Dan, I have never heard or encountered anything like this. Does your wife know the parents of the children. I am assuming she agreed to take them back to your home. I hope the children are okay. Hopefully you have had a meeting with school, and got answers from them. It seems crazy they would allow children to be taken outside of school, because parents did not turn up. It makes no sense.

It's not about Brexit for me. Brexit feels like a symptom of all the lies, hatred and control that's become part of our society. I like Corbyn for being honest and sincere but I won't be voting Labour, I'd rather have them in than the Tories But not enough to vote tactically.

Uncle Glen, it's to late for some, I don't believe nothing can be done to change things.

The green party have actually been doing something in monitoring and taking readings. http://www.southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/shocking_levels_of_air_pollution_in_southwark

Link to consultation https://consult.defra.gov.uk/airquality/air-quality-plan-for-tackling-nitrogen-dioxide/consultation/intro/

https://www.clientearth.org/major-victory-health-uk-high-court-government-inaction-air-pollution/ Government really needs to be working with groups who are genuinely concerned with our health and the future of this planet. A summary of the responses received from last consultation responses for the implementation of clean air zones.It does not offer a detailed opinion of the comments recieved.can't paste it. Link below on government trying to delay draft. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/27/air-pollution-plan-election-campaign-bomb-court-government Here's a highlight of there draft. http://www.airqualitynews.com/2017/05/05/draft-air-quality-plan/

No Mark I believe in looking fairly individually at criminal cases.I also believe in trying to understand the bigger picture eg council estate jobless convictee goes to prison, lived with mother who works but is recieving benefits as wages low. She is then hit with bedroom tax, zero hour contract couple of months of less work, evicted before her son gets out. That news wont hit the news though. FYI Southwark council from 2015-2016 did not rehouse anyone evicted. As I have said from the beginning, we do not know the injury to her boyfriend never the less it was a violent act. I think her case should be looked at individually but It has also been reported in the Telegraph she is not available to comment as she is having a break in Barbados. Whether this is true, if not, then whoever published it should be answerable to explain where he got that news.

Same for convicted sex offenders, in a hospital situation, or any other criminal offences.

http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/graduate-admissions-policy/graduate-applicants-previous-criminal-convictions From what I can make out from this link specifically Cambridge Uni, she may still be allowed to study there after a prison sentence. As they have already made a decision on returning, she'd be sorted.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Having sat through the entire case and heard the > facts I am in a position to make a considered > judgement" said... > > a) The Judge > b) The people who read an article in the Mail > > I'm glad people's sentences are decided by judges > and not the majority, but it would make a top TV > programme. Imagine... Time or No Time - you hear > the prosecution and the defence for one minute > each then you decide what people get: green button > for freedom, blue button for community service, > yellow for prison or red button for a hanging. > Choose now and we'll be back with your decision on > their life after the break... Most of the papers have got the same story telegraph etc but as has been said, no detail on injury. It might seem like a fun game show, but It's not about the public deciding the sentence It's about having an opinion, if your son, brother was imprisoned doing 2yrs for carrying a knife after being attacked several times on his estate, the last time he used the knife causing a cut which needed stitched on the victim (assailant) arm. The judge took into consideration it was first conviction so showed leniency. Then you read a story like this, Yes people make assumptions. No we were not in court yes we have media that does not put over the full story and encourages a divide. It is also assumption to think people are only being led by the daily mail etc rather than from a more personal view.