Sir Keir Starmer

You are right Boromart, blair did a lot of good, the economy was good (probably down to Brown though), schools and the NHS were properly funded. On balance he is partly responsible for Iraq. The sexed up dossier will forever haunt him, and rightly so. I suspect he saw britains security being secured on the american coat tails, which I have never agreed with.
 
SmallTown said:
Here is the problem with modern politics: no matter how many lies Johnson spreads, no matter ho many people he kills, there are still people willing to "defend" him. Only they realise they can't so they have to attack the opposition.

Dragged up, lets flip it around: how do you feel Johnson is doing as prime minister?
Click to expand...

Johnson is doing an irretrievably poor job, we can see that, but stop saying he "kills" people ffs, you sound like a daily mail journalist
 
SmallTown said:
manslaughter then
Click to expand...
Stop being silly with unnecessarily inflammatory language, you know fine well it is neither murder nor manslaughter. It's gross incompetence at best, but don't make it out to be something it isnt. Like I said, that's daily mail tactics and that never promotes a viewpoint well
 
Artie Fufkin said:
Stop being silly with unnecessarily inflammatory language, you know fine well it is neither murder not manslaughter. It's gross incompetence at best, but don't make it out to be something it isnt. Like I said, that's daily mail tactics and that never promotes a viewpoint well
Click to expand...
Isn’t gross incompetence that causes the death of people manslaughter?
 
SmallTown said:
Isn’t gross incompetence that causes the death of people manslaughter?
Click to expand...
You know perfectly well, or at least perfectly capable of discerning what Johnson is culpable of. As an "expert" in your field of work, you must have the intelligence to form an appropriate view without the need for sensationalism
 
SmallTown said:
Isn’t gross incompetence that causes the death of people manslaughter?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, it is. There are two questions that would need to be looked at to prove it in this case:

1) is it provable that the cabinet/PM were grossly negligent in their duty of care.
2) The bigger question is was this voluntary or involuntary, i.e. was a decision made to let old people die without giving them proper medical support and a fighting chance (voluntary manslaughter), OR did people unnecessarily die as a result of more benign, but flawed set of decisions (involuntarily). Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/criminal-law/fatal-offences/manslaughter/lecture.php

These would be difficult to prove either way, however I would argue this governments culpability in 'manslaughter' of our elderly care home residents, by refusing to admit them to hospital (seemingly to avoid the embarrassment of people dying in corridors like Italy), is closer to manslaughter than Blair's Iraq war actions.
 
The only thing you could level at the government is willful negligence over carehomes. That is not going to happen though.
 
The statutory offence of Corporate Manslaughter was brought in to ensure that

there were “effective laws in place to prosecute organisations where they have paid scant regard to the proper management of health and safety with fatal results” (Government reply to the First Joint Report from the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Committees, 2005/06 HC 540).

The offence applies only to certain organisations, as defined by the Act. They include private bodies such as limited companies and partnerships. Public bodies such as local authorities and NHS Trusts can also be held liable, on the grounds that they are bodies incorporated by statute (see section 25 and para 15 of the explanatory notes). Specified government departments and police forces can also be held liable. Individuals cannot be prosecuted for the offence, whether as an accessory or otherwise.
 
Artie Fufkin said:
The statutory offence of Corporate Manslaughter was brought in to ensure that

there were “effective laws in place to prosecute organisations where they have paid scant regard to the proper management of health and safety with fatal results” (Government reply to the First Joint Report from the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Committees, 2005/06 HC 540).

The offence applies only to certain organisations, as defined by the Act. They include private bodies such as limited companies and partnerships. Public bodies such as local authorities and NHS Trusts can also be held liable, on the grounds that they are bodies incorporated by statute (see section 25 and para 15 of the explanatory notes). Specified government departments and police forces can also be held liable. Individuals cannot be prosecuted for the offence, whether as an accessory or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Interesting, so, on a technicality, they are not guilty of manslaughter. Good old technicalities.
 
There are those who argue that the fact Bush and Blair got rid of Saddam Hussein contributed to the current fracturing in the Middle East. Some say Hussein was the one who kept all the despots and dictators in line.

Tory's will be throwing all sorts at Starmer over the next 12-18 months as a distraction technique and to see if anything sticks, hoping to get an easier ride to the next election..
 
Negligent by definition is "failing to take appropriate care over something". Did the government take appropriate care? I don't know. No one will ever end up in court for this, that we do know.
 
BoroMart said:
Technically, yes, it is. There are two questions that would need to be looked at to prove it in this case:

1) is it provable that the cabinet/PM were grossly negligent in their duty of care.
2) The bigger question is was this voluntary or involuntary, i.e. was a decision made to let old people die without giving them proper medical support and a fighting chance (voluntary manslaughter), OR did people unnecessarily die as a result of more benign, but flawed set of decisions (involuntarily). Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/criminal-law/fatal-offences/manslaughter/lecture.php

These would be difficult to prove either way, however I would argue this governments culpability in 'manslaughter' of our elderly care home residents, by refusing to admit them to hospital (seemingly to avoid the embarrassment of people dying in corridors like Italy), is closer to manslaughter than Blair's Iraq war actions.
Click to expand...
Your understanding is incomplete.
 
Laughing said:
Negligent by definition is "failing to take appropriate care over something". Did the government take appropriate care? I don't know. No one will ever end up in court for this, that we do know.
Click to expand...
You have to establish something else first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top