Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
When the act was passed outlawing the death penalty it was replaced with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and we were told at the time it would mean just that, rest of their life, steadily though it's gone down and down, rape a baby these days and be out in 5 years, murder some one and you'd be unlucky to get a 15 year sentence, it's not what was intended, very far from it.
|
Can you list the act which stated that the Judicary must give life sentances and that life should mean death in prison and the amendments which removed the requirement?
Also can you explain your thinking behind linking such amendments which give someone their life back with the likelihood of amendments being made which would make it easier to take someone's life? To me they appear to be opposing directions.
How do the amendments to acts which tighten the law and bring in more draconian restrictions come into play with your theory that laws are watered down over time?
Quote:
|
No not my opinion, she played a leading role at government committee level from everything from special needs education to embryology, if people didn't listen to her opinions there'd be something wrong.
|
Listening is one thing, but that's not the same as having a say in how things are done.
My nan used to write to Maggy Thatcher and tell her how to run the country, her opinions were listened to, but not acted on.
An advisor can say what they like, but it means nothing if ministers do not hold the same views and can see that it's a vote winner.
This is why there have been so many strange things published in the media suggesting that one party is going to do this or another is going to do that, simply because an advisor has suggested it, when it never happens because firstly it's not in line with ministers' own thinking, and secondly it would lose votes.