Ot- May calls for election in June.

[ramAnag]

Like I said earlier, how is the battlebus different to when all the big guns turn out to marginal seats with all the entourage?

Supposedly, the cost of the battlebus is 2k, surely the cost of the leaders and their entourage equal that, at least.

Ah, so you are still there Ram59. A case of 'answer came there none' still to post #130 I see.
Sshhhh...was that a retraction I heard?

[swaledale]

I a merely stating the facts of the case Rog, the fact that its not necessarily covered correctly by the media is nothing to do with the CPS, who said nothing about what had happened but merely said "insufficient evidence to pursue" actually the CPS take a judgement as to whether a case is likely to succeed, if its less than 50-50 they usually don't - that has nothing to do with what actually happened its whether they can win in court.

Its the very same judgement that is made every day when they wish to take legal action, they know what happened, but what are the chances of winning in court? is there enough evidence to do so and is worth risking the costs.

In the CPS case, they dont want to lose too many cases, looks bad for their performance and of course they dont want to risk costs on losing a case.

[Ram59]

Ah, so you are still there Ram59. A case of 'answer came there none' still to post #130 I see.
Sshhhh...was that a retraction I heard?

No retraction, I've just given up banging my head against a brick wall, as I have give up on persuading Swale that Abbott is racist.

[ramAnag]

No retraction, I've just given up banging my head against a brick wall, as I have give up on persuading Swale that Abbott is racist.

Oh great...you as well.
Suppose I asked for that, but at the risk of banging my own head...even you must surely accept that saying someone 'has a point' does not acknowledge total agreement and that there is the world of difference between 'sacking' and 'suspension'

[roger_ramjet]

Whilst you are generally correct that sacking and suspension are not the same thing, when you are an MP they do in fact amount to the same thing - especially with an election around the corner. You cannot suspend an MP without effectively sacking him since his mandate is taken away and he has no opportunity to get his job back for at least 5 years, if at all, as he would then need to unseat a standing member (oooh missus)

[swaledale]

No retraction, I've just given up banging my head against a brick wall, as I have give up on persuading Swale that Abbott is racist.

Because Abbot isn't racist! Prone to foot in mouth incidents but not racist. You fail to understand the context in which she speaks, but thats not surprising!

[ramAnag]

Whilst you are generally correct that sacking and suspension are not the same thing, when you are an MP they do in fact amount to the same thing - especially with an election around the corner. You cannot suspend an MP without effectively sacking him since his mandate is taken away and he has no opportunity to get his job back for at least 5 years, if at all, as he would then need to unseat a standing member (oooh missus)

But as I've said before...you can't apply that...it effectively places MP's above the law or at least above their own electoral rules.
It is possible to put a system in place where discredited MP's or those under investigation are temporarily, or otherwise, replaced, especially as most people tend to vote for a specific Party rather than an individual.
Hypothetically, if a Government passed important and possibly controversial legislation during the time of a slender majority as a result of reliance upon a few MPs who had been improperly elected would that be okay with you?

[swaledale]

I'd go further Anag it seems people vote on the basis of the leader or at least what the media tells them about the leader, irrespective of which political party they represent, other than those who would vote for a monkey as long is wore the right party colours!!

[Andy_Faber]

I'd go further Anag it seems people vote on the basis of the leader or at least what the media tells them about the leader, irrespective of which political party they represent, other than those who would vote for a monkey as long is wore the right party colours!!

Swale, I thought you should be first to know that, based on a comment about a 'contentious issue' made by one of the party leaders this week, I am considering a change in who I put my cross against. Just weighing up whether I should be voting based on a single issue

[KingCharlieGeorge]

I'd go further Anag it seems people vote on the basis of the leader or at least what the media tells them about the leader, irrespective of which political party they represent, other than those who would vote for a monkey as long is wore the right party colours!!

I'd vote for a chimp over the Tories any day Can't understand the logic of people who rely on public services (which is all but the very rich) voting for the Tories. We will end up paying much more for the private service replacements. USA is the prime example with health care; theirs is a private system which costs 18% of GDP (Tories have cut NHS from 8.8 to 6% of GDP) 12% of that come from US government propping up private profits!