The Political Thread

[Frank]

Can we vote for an independant Yorkshire next? We'll get by alright without all you other buggers.

That would be the inevitable consequence of the devo-max (sort of) option being touted by the NO campaign in the last few days. The economic aspects of it wouldn't actually be too dissimilar to the Northern economic area idea Osbourne was floating a few weeks ago, where everything from Liverpool to Newcastle would be given responsibility for fiscal policy, transport, and economic development.

The idea was that it would allow 'The North' (ahem) to compete with the lure of London for investment capital, but devolving social and welfare policy to those areas might be even more of a lure for anyone who doesn't fancy taking on a million pound mortgage on a two bedroom flat in Hackney.

[Colin Zeal]

My two-bedroom flat in Hackney was only ( ) £225,000, thank you very much.

[Spikes]

Post Independence, what would happen to The Two Ronnies, and who would get which sketch?

[Modern Panther]

We're interested in developing a Ronnie/Krankie exchange programme.

[Hawkmumbler]

Question as a diver, will I have to pay to get in now? I dive regularly in Oban and Mull so if it's gonna start charging extra you can stuff it and i'll take my business to Cornwall!

[Theblazeuk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29151026

Would they normally bring the armed unit out to deal with a knife?

[NapalmKev]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29151026

Would they normally bring the armed unit out to deal with a knife?

Yes, they would.

They've even been known to bring out the Armed Unit to deal with Unarmed people who run while wearing backpacks!

Cheers

[Dudley]

Yes more than likely. 

FTFY

No more Tory governments- ever! No wonder your smiling.

Guffaw!  SNP already toadying up to Murdoch and talking about lowering corporation tax.  Future right wing Scottish governments might not carry the Conservative name, but they'll pursue the same neoliberal policies.

[Spaceghost]

Without the sensible guiding hand of an English government, every man, woman and child in Scotland will be dead in five years, poisoned by a diet consisting exclusively of strong lager, deep fried Mars bars, cheap heroin, shortbread and chips.

Come on all you Scotch folk! Stay with your superior 'sasanach' friends.

"Ye ken it makes guid sense!"

(This message brought to you by the No campaign)

[Stan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29151026

Would they normally bring the armed unit out to deal with a knife?

It doesn't sound too unreasonable on the face of it. Not that I trust any investigation from these people.

A few months back I looked out the window to see a neighbour with what clearly looked like a small pellet rifle thing, and there was an 8ft armed police occifer giving him a talking to. I'm not exactly sure what went on there.

[Hawkmumbler]

Am I the only one not surprised Pistorius has been acquitted? I've always found the "evidence" against him incredibly hyperbolic and superficial.

[Jim_Campbell]

Am I the only one not surprised Pistorius has been acquitted? I've always found the "evidence" against him incredibly hyperbolic and superficial.

They were never going to prove murder — murder is defined entirely by intent, and when you have a killing with no direct witnesses, I don't see anyone could prove intent under those circumstances.

A jury might well have convicted, but a judge is going to have that specific issue uppermost in their minds.

Cheers

Jim

[ZenArcade]

Actus and mens rea. The guilty act and the guilty mind. If one or either is missing the charge falls. Z

[Hawkmumbler]

He committed man slaughter naturally, however going off what evidence (or pack their off against) their is, it was not premeditated murder.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

On the bare facts - shooting at someone through the door - there could be enough for murder to stick. Obviously, it depends on the evidence and to be honest I didn't follow it. Shooting through a closed door into an enclosed space at someone could be indicative of an intention to kill, or at least a reckless disregard to the consequences of his action.

There's a thing here colloquially referred to as the "egg shell skull" rule, or "take your victim as you find him". The point is that if you hit someone on the skull with a hammer and they did because they have a fragile skull, it's not much of a defence to say "Oh, I didn't realise that was going to happen."

So, if you shoot through a door then is it an excuse to say you didn't know who was there?

The issue, for me, is whether or not he was acting in self-defence or at least thought he was. That depends on the facts