I notice nobody on here is talking about the local government elections. I wonder why that might be.

OK. don't bother. I already know the answers.

1. Nobody is interested in local government elections.

2. its just a minor bump in the road

3. Local government elections dont really count. they are only about emptying the bins.

4. All these woke loony left woke woke woke woke woke (repeat the word woke another fifty times) communists (etc etc)

5. who cares about Wandsworth anyway?

6. its time to move on

7. don't you know there's a war on.

8. its all Brussels fault.

9. The EU is about to break down. it will be gone by lunchtime.

There you go. I have provided your answers for you.

OK.... which one of it is you...? Which one of you made this video..??

Quote from Heero Yuy

How good this is will depend on what the alternative funding policy is and can you opt out of it.

It pretty much means advertising and sponsorship. So, we can look forward to The MacDonalds Coronation of King Charles III. That sort of thing.

We can also look forward to the sort of State propaganda system that Putin is using in Russia to brainwash his people into believing that their war in Ukraine is just. Putin controls the media and the press in a way that Boris Johnson envies and wants to instal here for his own political advantage.

What we need to understand is that the Licence Fee is not really the issue, per se, that the government is interested in. It was just the tool they used to get what they wanted. The real target was the BBC's independence. While the Licence Fee funded it, the BBC didn't need commercial money and thus couldn't be controlled by capitalist forces. With the Licence Fee gone, the BBC will be dependent on sponsors and advertisers, and as we all know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The likes of Rupert Murdoch will dictate what news you see and hear. The likes of Jeff Bezos will dictate what you will be entertained by. But hand in hand with the their capitalist paymasters, it is the news that the government wants to control. Without the licence fee, the BBC's independence is gone. The Tories, hand in hand with Murdoch, Dacre and co, have control of the news - and the means to exploit it for disinformation and propaganda purposes - in the palms of their hands.

In the days of the USSR, the only daily newspaper was Pravda, a word that in Russian means "Truth". This was a brainwashing tool that is straight out of George Orwell. But it can be powerful in the minds of the gullible and easily fooled.

It's quite ironic that the extreme right intends to adopt Soviet communist style state control of the news. The only difference being that they will get capitalist sponsors to pay for it. And the people who pay for the news, are going to want to control what it says. When the BBC was independent, those who paid for advertising knew they couldn't dictate the news output because there was an alternative voice out there that was credible and governed by a charter that ensured its balance and honesty. With that gone there will be nothing to block them. Those who pay for the news will want to dictate how it's reported.

This isn't the beginning of balanced, honest journalism, it's the end of it.

It's the end of quality broadcasting. We won't see any more of those incredible Attenborough nature series that were so admired the world over. We can forget the wonderful comedy programmes that the commercial channels wouldn't have touched, but the BBC took a chance with, such as Monty Python, Dad's Army and Are You Being Served. No more of that. American imports will flood in, complete with their factored in commercial breaks. The days when you could watch the Wimbledon singles finals uninterrupted are over.

The BBC isn't gaining independence, it's losing it.

The thing I hold on to is knowing that this horrible, wretched government can't last forever. Fascism is not eternal. Sooner or later the people will realise what has been done to our country and will reject it.

Perhaps a future government will never re-instate the licence fee, but the BBC will be returned to independence one way or another and be funded by the people who use it, probably by direct taxation. I can live with that. It will be less noticeable and more difficult to attack with propaganda in the future.

What is the definition of a gaffe? It's when a politician accidentally speaks the truth.

Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said that implementing Brexit in full - that is, implementing the post-border checks that his government negotiated and sold to the British people as an "oven ready deal", would be - in his words - "a massive act of national self harm."

Hold on a minute Jacob. Did we hear you right? Implementing Brexit in full would be a massive act of national self harm?

Errrrrrr..... hasn't the remain / rejoin campaign been telling the British people that for the last six years?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: "implementing Brexit would be a massive act of national self harm

And before you say it, no, there is no misunderstanding here. There is no being 'taken out of context' or any accidental slip of the tongue or any other feeble excuse that is usually trotted out. It is what it says on the tin. Brexit is a massive national act of self harm.

He also has the brass neck to claim that this would save Britons £1b in paperwork and bureacuracy, but hold on a minute, that's £1b that we wouldn't have had to spend on paperwork and bureaucracy anyway if we hadn't had Brexit at all. Without Brexit THERE WOULD BE NO BORDER CONTROLS OR PAPERWORK TO BE BUREAUCRATIC ABOUT.

Yes. JRM has made a gaffe. By any definition of the word.

He has spoken the truth. I'm sure he didn't mean to, but he did. it's been a long time coming, but like our inevitable rejoin it got there in the end.

Quote from OLD BOY

https://www.theglobeandmail.co…de-agreement-expected-by/

The first major free trade deal following Brexit beckons.

India gets what it wants. What does Britain get? More immigration from India and - if the negotiations go as well as Britain is hoping, a massive 0.2% increase on trade for Britain over ten years.

Wow. What a win for Britain that will be, eh? A trade deal that is worth tuppence over ten years.

I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of Britain's borders? And yet, here we are, ostensibly about to sign a trade deal with a country that demands, as one of the conditions, that we give them control of our borders. Yep. That's Brexit.

Another False Dawn

Is it worth the fuss? By the government's own calculations, a trade deal with India would add just 0.2% to the UK's income or GDP - and that's over the course of a decade, and only if there is a substantial reduction in trade barriers.

Quote from OLD BOY

I agree, this is appalling behaviour. He deserves a stiff penalty to deter others.

A jolly good spanking from nanny, perhaps?

Meanwhile in the House of Commons

Just a general thread for statements, quotations, Tweets and stuff that politicians and other politically motivated individuals say on any given topic. Any political subject is fair game as long as its reasonably topical.

How about so I start us off:

This is obviously the ridiculous allegations made against Angela Rayner that she flashed her fanny at Boris johnson in Parliament to distract him during question time.

She is more than capable of holding her own against the lying, dissembling, dishonest individual who doesn't need her to open her legs to be distracted. Love the Pinocchio nose on the meme. How accurate is that.

Quote from It'sThatGirlAgain

Are ordinary people getting a fair deal out of anything our governments decisions? Well, it seems plenty of people aren't happy about the oven ready deal the Government struck on their behalf and said it was exactly what we all wanted. Especially those trying to get home from Spain:

British Passport Holders Stuck At Malaga Airport Claim Irish Getting Preferential Treatment

Well, yeah. Irish passport holders get to go through the channel marked 'EU Passport Holders' While Brits have to queue with everybody else. But of course, that's alright because its what you voted for and Johnson made it quite clear that the deal he struck with the EU was what he wanted all along. Yes sir, he's looking after ordinary British people.

Still a bit off topic I know, but I couldnt resist adding it to the above. Cut and stick. This is a satire that has been posted by one of our students on a rejoin forum. This says it like it really is>

Man in huge passport queue at Malaga airport claims he didn’t vote to leave the EU to be treated like someone from outside the EU

A man sitting in a huge passport queue for non-EU travellers at Malaga airport has today insisted he didn’t vote for Brexit just so he could be treated like someone from outside the EU.

Boomer Derek Williams, 72, is returning from a short break with retired friends to Spain, but has been left dismayed by the huge queues for non-EU travellers leaving Malaga.

He told us, “This isn’t what Brexit is all about. I voted to take back control, not to be sat in a queue for a couple of hours for no reason whatsoever.

“Look, LOOK, that Irish family from our hotel just swanned right past to the EU gates and are probably now sat airside enjoying a beer and a leisurely lunch.

“When I voted for Brexit, I did it to stop all those foreigners getting in and out of our country, I didn’t vote for it so it would be harder for me to get in and out of theirs, that’s just stupid.”

Meanwhile, non-morons have pointed out that such inconveniences were long predicted by people campaigning against Brexit, but that unfortunately a ‘real future inconvenience’ paled into insignificance against ads depicting entirely fictional hordes of Syrians heading to the UK through Turkey.

Derek remains adamant that voting for Brexit was the right thing to do, telling us, “I can live with a few hours queueing in the airport if it means all the foreigners stop coming to the UK.

“Wait, what do you mean migrant numbers from outside the EU have doubled since Brexit? No, that can’t be right. What?! We’re expecting the largest ever number of foreign migrants into the country this year?

“This isn’t the Brexit I voted for!”

Yes it is. This is exactly what you voted for. And you are getting it. The remainers told you this would happen. And it is.

And just to be on topic for a moment, French people can use the EU channel at Malaga too. And they will be able to indefinitely, because they have elected Macron and won't be leaving the EU.

Quote from OLD BOY

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61117469

The thing is, most travellers are earning money illegally, trespass upon public and private land and often terrorise local people, who notice an increase in burglaries while they remain in the locality. So do they deserve to be treated equally?

Do we have to treat criminals equally?

Personally, I have little sympathy. Am I being harsh?

Display More

Yes, you are.

The very basis of law in any civilised country is that nobody is above the law, and everybody is equal before the law. This was true even in medieval times. Alfred the Great wrote the first book of English law and that demanded that all his (the King's) people be given equal justice. It abolished trial by combat. Later, Henry II (12th century) passed laws such as the right to remain silent, trial by jury, and the presumption of innocence. He established the first courts called Shire Reeves (from which the word Sheriff is derived).

Even during harsh feudal times the motivation was to pass good laws that recognised some sort of sanctity of human life, even for criminals.

Only boomers could want to see the country reverting to pre-Saxon principles of law.

I often wonder where your generation went wrong. What happened to turn a generation that was born into the post war Britain that had just established the welfare state, the NHS and had signed the newly created charter of human rights? When you were kids, hanging was abolished, homosexuality was decriminalised, abortion was made legal and the economy flourished. England even won the world cup!!

You surely didnt get your attitudes from your parents. They were the generation that endured the Blitz and beat the nazis. Now, you want to BE the nazis. The soldiers came home from the war determined to make a better world for their children. YOU are their children and frankly, you are not worthy of their sacrifice or their noble intentions.

I was born in the 1980s and I'm nothing like you, and yet, I was born to boomer parents. Millenials, Generation X and Generation Z, even if they do have bad 'uns among them are mostly motivated by humane values, equality, tolerance, fair play, respect for human rights, the environment and the rule of law. You demonise the majority on the actions of the few and call for extreme sanctions for the children of the generation YOU spawned.

What in God's name happened to make you the hateful, vengeance driven, racist generation you have become?

Quote from Heero Yuy

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvand…xt-kieran-hayler-fiancee/

Five year max sentence available but what's the betting a slap on the wrist?

A bit like £50 fines for very wealthy people, who broke the laws they themselves wrote and passed, while other, less well off people have been given much higher fines, the maximum being £10'000.

Quote from Little Wing

Sorry, don't think le Pen is a whack job. She's a French patriot. She would fix the Islamic incursion threat and tell the EU to take a long walk off a short plank. At a time like this, what is not to like? Macron, on the other hand, is a handsome toyboy who does as he is told. Everyone loves him because supporting him makes them feel good. He's a halo polisher's wet dream.

And the French people voted for him so, you know, democracy and all that.

Funny thing this democracy. When you go around telling other people to suck it up, Karma has a way of throwing your words back at you.

Putin loving, EU hating Le Pen will have to wait another five years. And may not win then. If she stands.

As the French say, tu as perdu, ressaisis-toi (you lost, get over it)

Quote from mike murphy

Macron hates the UK always has always will. An enemy through and through. Le Pen is more intelligent and prepared to look at the bigger picture and would be quick to form alliances with other like minded Countries so that there was mutual benefit to both France and them.

Alas France is stuck with Macron who will continue to run France for the benefit of the wealthy, woke Liberals and stamp on the normal French people.

The extreme right complaining about a government that runs its country for the benefit of wealthy individuals and stamps on ordinary people.

I nearly spluttered the tea I was drinking when I read that.

So tell me just exactly what DID Dido Harding do with that £37 billion her mate Boris Johnson gave her for a test and trace system that didn't work. And how about Rishi Sunak's wife not paying UK taxes. Oh, I forget, that's entirely lawful and we all know how Tories obey the law don't we? Especially the laws they make themselves. The £37 billion sure as hell wasn't spent on test and trace, although we don't know how much of it did, and how much was spirited away into the pockets of the rich because no audited account of the spending has been released. In all probability no audit has even taken place.

Are ordinary people getting a fair deal out of anything our governments decisions? Well, it seems plenty of people aren't happy about the oven ready deal the Government struck on their behalf and said it was exactly what we all wanted. Especially those trying to get home from Spain:

British Passport Holders Stuck At Malaga Airport Claim Irish Getting Preferential Treatment

Well, yeah. Irish passport holders get to go through the channel marked 'EU Passport Holders' While Brits have to queue with everybody else. But of course, that's alright because its what you voted for and Johnson made it quite clear that the deal he struck with the EU was what he wanted all along. Yes sir, he's looking after ordinary British people.

Quote from mike murphy

Seems like the Laws of the land need to be reviewed. Yes it's wrong to attack a burglar OUTSIDE your house , BUT IMHO if someone enters your home illegally and puts you or your family in fear or alarm then the Burglar loses his human rights while in your property and the law should be seen to be on the side of the home owner.

Firstly, the law only allows the minimum amount of force in extreme circumstances, and is restricted to the amount of force necessary to prevent injury or loss of life. The home owner was not under any threat and wasn't even in the house. His response to the doorbell alarm should have been to alert the police and allow them to deal with the incident.

Secondly, the alleged burglar doesn't lose his human rights. Human rights cannot be withdrawn. Even you're entitled to them. Yes even you.

Thirdly, the law doesn't come down on anybody's side. Justice must be blind. Check out the statue on top of the Old Bailey.

In MY humble opinion, vigilantes and those who support them are no better than criminals themselves.

Loss of property does not trump loss of life.

tthe caller thinks that rayner was trying to distract boris johnson from saying something sensible. Thats where her argument completely collapses. When has Johnson ever said anything sensible

Ben kentish rips her up for toilet paper.

Cut and stick from original posted on rejoiner forum by "Student Grant"

Conservative MPs who sexually slandered Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner have been warned by party chiefs to expect consequences.

The drooling, chinless compulsive masturbators, speaking to one of the dead-eyed anthropomorphised turds the Mail on Sunday calls journalists, said Ms Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs to distract Boris Johnson during debates in Parliament.

Reference was made in the valueless, debased shitrag of a newspaper to 1992 thriller Basic Instinct, in which a character uncrosses her legs while wearing no underwear.

A senior Conservative Party source said: “These MPs have done something absolutely unforgivable - by which I mean, of course, that they have shown the public the truth about what we’re like even though there are local elections coming up. Now we’re obliged to pretend we disapprove of misogyny, just as we regularly have to pretend we disapprove of racism, homophobia or any of the other things we usually have a laugh about but are frowned on by the woke brigade."

“We’re extremely angry, even though Angela Rayner, like all duplicitous little fillies, clearly uses her feminine wiles to bewitch Boris Johnson and make him look like an incompetent, lying arsehole."

“That’s why we’re putting the culprits on notice that we’ll be determinedly leaving absolutely every stone unturned in our non-attempt to find out who they are. They can expect us to rigorously not ask any Tory MPs who the guilty men are, even though it’s blatantly obvious to anybody with so much as half a brain that dozens, if not hundreds, of fellow Tories almost certainly know exactly who they are."

“In addition, should their names happen to be revealed, we shall very sternly do absolutely nothing meaningful to punish them. Indeed, we shall - with equal sternness - allow them to come up with an excuse about being misquoted, it all being a big joke or some other bullshit."

“And now if you don’t mind, I have to get on with waiting, alongside my fellow Tories, for all this to blow over, like we always do every time Johnson drops himself in the shit."

“It’s a pity women have the vote, really, because if they didn’t we wouldn’t even have to pretend to care.”

Quote from OLD BOY

If there's a case, there's a case, IT Girl. I was just pointing out the political motivation that is evident in these initiatives.

Justice is justice regardless of politics. If they appear to be getting after boris johnson it is because there is evidence that he has a case to answer. If he has done no wrong he has nothing to fear.

TGLP takes cases on their merit. Like this one (cut and stick from GLP press release):

Yesterday, Parliament did the right thing and referred the Prime Minister to the Committee of Privileges, which investigates wrongs done to or in Parliament, like lying.

But the Committee of Privileges has a limited scope and can only look at certain types of wrongdoing by an MP. There is another committee, called the Committee on Standards, which split off from the Committee of Privileges in 2012. Its role in relation to the conduct of MPs is to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is Kathryn Stone. It was her report that recommended, for example, that Owen Paterson be suspended from the House of Commons for a month. She looks at the conduct of MPs generally and their compliance with the MPs’ Code of Conduct.

This code states: “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

If she were to find that there had been a serious breach of the Code, it would result in a referral to the Committee on Standards. A decision by that Committee to suspend an MP for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days would, unless the Commons overruled it (and we don’t think that has ever happened), trigger a legal process called a recall process. This would involve a petition being placed before that MP’s constituents, and if more than 10 per cent of eligible registered voters signed that petition, their MP would lose his seat, and there would be a by-election.

This morning, two Good Law Project supporters wrote to Ms Stone, with our legal assistance, asking her to investigate Boris Johnson for a breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. Trish and Cathy are two people whose elderly parents died alone during the pandemic.

Their story is heart-breaking: “We did not visit our parents for many months because we followed the restrictions that were in force at the time. We were not able to be with them when they were dying. We followed the rules. Nothing will bring back the many missed precious visits to our loved ones. Nothing will compensate them for the loneliness they endured in their final months and hours of life.”

They point out that Boris Johnson is the first British Prime Minister to have committed a criminal offence while in office. They add: “We believe that our elected representatives have a duty to behave honestly, honourably and with integrity. When they do not, they should face sanction so as to restore trust in our public institutions.

“It is damaging to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons that any Member should have been in breach of serious and extremely onerous restrictions imposed by Parliament to protect the public in a time of crisis. It is also damaging… that a Member, having breached those restrictions, should fail to acknowledge that breach for almost two years after the event, and should show a serious lack of honesty and candour in relation to that issue…”

Nothing could be clearer to us. The country deserves a Prime Minister we can look up to, not look down at. We stand alongside Trish and Cathy in calling for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to open an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct.

Spookily this election reveals the difference between FPTP and PR with a rather telling comparison

Le Pen lost heavily with 41% of the popular vote. And yet, in Britain, 43% of the popular vote was enough to give the tories a landslide election victory.

This is why FPTP is so skewed and this comparison is going to be used to demonstrate to new, young British voters what a bent political system we have in this country, and how reform is so desperately needed.

I also notice Armitage Shanks getting excited about the prospect of the parliamentary elections in France creating a hung Parliament which (he seems to think) will result in the hard right getting more influence. But hold on a minute. Isn't this the very thing that is frequently condemned on this forum? If Britain had PR, we would get hung parliaments and that - so I keep getting told on here - would be a very bad thing.

AS says: Macron will lose overall control then and his absolute power will be removed as he will have to form a coalition and the French Prime Minister will be from a rival party so he won't get everything his own way.

Well, for a start, Macron might NOT lose overall control. That remains to be seen so lets not count any chickens before they're hatched. Not so long ago, people on this forum were predicting the imminent collapse of the EU, but that hasn't happened either. I prefer to wait and see rather than try to predict the future.

But getting back to the point, I've been reading ever since I joined this site that when it comes to UK. it is better to have big majorities so that governments can properly get on with implementing their policies without interference. Whereas in France, it seems the extreme right on here want to see a hung parliament in France. Anyone for double standards?

So. Why is a hung parliament that requires parties to compromise is a good thing in France, but it would be a disaster in England?

Quote from Little Wing

I suspect the mother of all backlashes is firing up and Frexit may kick it into action in the EU. Swexit could be next.

Macron beats Le Pen by a big margin.

So much for Frexit.

The long hoped for collapse of the EU, by British extremist right wingers looks like being put off. Again. And again. And again.

Brejoin will take a while yet, and there are no predictions on when, but its being worked on. The extreme right would do well to think on that rather than continue to rely on fanciful pipe dreams.

Quote from Norra Batty

I tell you something I would not be surprised if later down the line we find out that some of these big charities are doing a Bob Geldof and Feed the World. Feed their own pocket more like and I bet some MP's have their fingers in it too. Just like they made money from Covid they will make money from war and it will be the rest of us that suffer. I wonder if Sunaks bitch has paid back the tax payers money she got from Covid to set up some business to do with Covid that never started, a bit like those that earned from the Nightingale hospitals scam. And who remembers that snobby artisan dog food company owned by some baroness or something that got a load of tax payers money for IIRC masks that never appeared or where not the right ones. That was another scam. Panorama done an episode and revealed that one along with the lab scams.

Tell us something we don't already know.

During the first world war, in 1916, at a dinner for American pacifists, the American political writer John Reed*, was asked, by a politician who didn't want America to enter the first world war "Why would America get involved in the war in Europe?" Without even looking up from his plate, Reed replied "To make a profit."

Wars always make a profit for somebody. If you look even slightly beyond the rhetoric of Boris Johnson and the Tory party, Britain isn't GIVING Ukraine resistance fighters missiles with which to oppose Russian forces, we are SELLING them. Oh, no money is changing hands at the moment because Ukraine is a bit financially hamstrung right now, but make no mistake, the British arms manufacturers are making a hell of a lot of sales right now, and if Ukraine are buying on a "buy now, pay later" basis, the interest on these purchases is likely to be very attractive indeed later on.

I cannot provide sources for this particular item, to say for certain that Mrs Sunak personally is making wads of dosh out of it. All I can say is that it is a matter of fact that Infosys have a slice of the Rwandan pie and given her family connections, it is unlikely that she hasn't got her hands dirty somewhere along the line.

We are dealing with the most corrupt government in British history. Johnson and his cronies are criminals of the most godawful stripe and are getting away with it, in full view of the world, because they have the press under their control and are able to manipulate the levers of legislation to do as they please. With the events of the last three years, nobody can be in any doubt at all about that.

Britain has no written constitution. We have no formal document that would allow us to impeach a criminal like Boris Johnson and his cohorts. A constitutional monarchy operates on conventions. Conventions such as the Parliamentary Code of Conduct. These are the only mechanisms that contain the activities of MP's and governments. It is beholden on those holding high office to behave according to the code. But those in power at this time, simply ignore the code of conduct, knowing that, in legal terms, they can do so without impeachment. Sure, their party can make a vote of no confidence, but the Tory backbenchers of today are so spineless they are easily beaten down by the whips with threats of de-selection if they don't toe the line.

In such an atmosphere of corruption and criminal practice, it is no surprise that the organisations you describe, that appeal to the people to provide "Aid For Ukraine" are little more than false flag operations who provide nothing to help that beleagured country, but instead, siphon the money off for themselves. And all of it with government rubber stamps that make their operation legal. If we try to probe their activities ten years from now, you can be sure the paper trail of where the money went will stop dead at a name plate on the wall of an office block somewhere in the Cayman Islands.

People who think they are helping the people of Ukraine, are being fleeced, And you can bet your boots that Boris Johnson knows all about it. And is probably taking a slice of the pie for himself.... to an anonymous offshore account, of course.

But you'll never be able to prove it.

* John Reed was played by Warren Beattie in the movie "Reds". The real life John Reed was a political activist of the late 19th and early 20th century who attempted to introduce unions and socially democratic policies into the United States. He died in post revolutionary Russia and to date, is the only westerner buried within the walls of the Kremlin.

I do not attempt to be an apologist for the crimes of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. That is not my intention and I will state that i share the same abhorrence for their acts that everybody will feel. However, I find it disgusting that mature, grown adults, nearly thirty years after the event, are still behaving and acting in the manner of crazed maniacs, hell bent on bloodlust.

Thompson and Venables did a horrible.... utterly horrible thing and any decent thinking person would be horrified and shocked at the appalling nature of the crime. There is no diminishing it or justifying it in any way, shape or form.

But it has to be considered that they were both around 11 years of age themselves at the time. Barely children themselves. At the time they were the youngest murderers in British criminal justice in modern history. Is it any wonder that the justice system found itself in a situation it was ill prepared for, and rational thinking could not have allowed for?

The murder prompted much debate - quite rightly - into how such incidents should be dealt with. For a start, the use of CCTV was greatly increased directly as a result of this, whereas, although it existed, it wasn't much of a priority beforehand.

Rational society, based on experience, requires precedent as a catalyst for change. Had this terrible crime not occurred, it is unlikely that innovations such as widespread CCTV coverage would have happened when they did. For sure, another event would probably have happened at some point later in the future which would have prompted it, but it was terrible fate that led to the death of a sweet little boy that made that innovation happen, but we can say pretty much for certain that somewhere along the line, it would have taken a dreadful incident to prompt the sort of soul searching and critical analysis that brought about changes that made others in future times safer.

And what of the 38 people who saw Thompson and Venables maltreating the boy before they killed him, and did nothing, thinking that this was just "kids playing"? What sort of society was it that thought two older boys, clearly torturing a smaller boy, as "normal interaction" and "let them get on with it". You are the older people on the forum. You tell me.

You tell me why people of YOUR generation thought that what Venables and Thompson were doing was just "Kids playing". Go on. Tell me. This was your people standing idly by, letting a little kid being clearly tortured and they did nothing to stop it.

Adults saw Thompson and Venables throw paint in his eyes, kick him, punch him and an eyewitness said that when he saw Bulger at the canal, Jamie Bulger was "crying his eyes out". Why did that adult not intervene? Because there were mores in British society that said "Boys will be boys" and no doubt the likes of Mad Mike will tell us that interfering with the "normal inclinations" of boys is to let them get on with it. to intervene is "Woke"? Because I would bet a pair of Jimmy Choos to a sock with a hole in it that if anybody suggested that adults interfering with kids "interacting" in that way would be shouting "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD" from the rooftops.

I think there are people on this forum who, had they seen Thompson and Venables abusing Jamie Bulger, would not have interfered because, in their time, beating the living shit out of a kid half your age was "character building" and normal behaviour that "Never did me any harm". And anybody who says such things are wrong are woke, loony left liberals who need to grow a pair.

But now you're outraged. Now you want "Justice" for "Wee" Jamie Bulger.

Bullshit.

I don't think you want justice. You want to make political capital out of it.

You want somebody to die so you can feel better about yourselves. Now, this case is nothing more than a cause celebre for the angry, pitchfork wielding mob. More dog whistle politics. An historic case that you hope will serve the cause of bringing back capital punishment.

Venables and Thompson were appalling criminals who did a dreadfully sick thing. But they're nowhere near as sick as the sort of people who seek to make political capital out of their actions today.