British Politics

Think this would be a good first step but I'd be quite surprised if anything materialises. Presumably discriminating on the basis of age would leave open a host of legal challenges?

Pretty much.
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/03/01/sa...

Hm this doesn't touch the fact that the child pornography owner has been excused though

Ministers have reiterated their opposition to any deal with Brussels allowing young people to live and work in EU countries, after a report said some elements of this could be agreed as part of a wider set of negotiations.

The Times on Wednesday cited unnamed government sources as saying UK ministers accepted they would have to “give ground” over parts of a proposed mutual youth mobility system if they were to get agreement in other areas, such as a reduction in checks on UK food entering the EU.

“If we are serious about resetting relations with the EU then we need to be prepared to give them some of the things that they want,” the source told the paper.

But a government spokesperson said this was not being looked at. “We are not considering it, there are no plans for this, or any work being done on it,” they said.

Asked whether the issue might come up in future talks with the EU, they said: “Our negotiating team has very clear red lines, and none of the preparatory work involves this.”

So, if we take your report at face value the issues aren't two tier policing, its more:
- They are different crimes; so the issue is crimes we think should be differently punished
- There's a significant time difference- nearly 7 years. I think a lot of the punishment levels have changed in this time. You can't compare the two

Where I'm at though is our justice and jail system is a huge mess, largely because of lack of investment in prisons; politicised & non-joined up approaches to sentencing; and, lack of investment in the broader justice system

Its awful

Yeah, hard to declare a winner when you're arguing who is least worst out of white supremacists or paedophiles.

Hard to think anyone sane of mind could even start considering racism even remotely as dangerous as pedophilia but i guess this is the hill people on the left want to inhabit these days.

Most white supremacists do not break the law, and neither do most paedophiles.

They might secretly want to kill some Jews or blacks, or have sex with kids, but they don't act out their fantasies.

However, if either does break the law, I'm fairly confident they both would be dealt with appropriately and according to the level of their transgressions.

Afaik owning pedo-pornographic material is already a very severe crime. Max sentence 10 years. The same is true in most civilized countries afaik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_porn...

Giving no time is absolutely exceptional (afaik)

This was the 2-tier problem: we have a person who should have been sentenced for an extremely severe crime (as judged by the max sentence allowed which afaik is more than that for racism)

In a sense , how is it not absolutely obvious that THE WORST RACIST IS LESS OF A PROBLEM THAN THE BEST PEDOPHILE? how is this not obvious i ask, to everyone, how doesn't this sound as obviously true morally?

The difficulty and the danger with racism is that it can lead to a mass, even mass-hysterical response. Paedophilia, however much it may quietly insinuate itself into teaching, social work, the civil service and even the judiciary, is never going to be exactly populist in appeal.

Yep.

That's not really an argument. You're just appealing to an opportunity cost/loss without arguing for why things would work out that way. I think if we invented a pill that stopped the aging process at 75 enabling people to live forever but not able to contribute much, we'll just figure out how to increase productivity to continue to provide the goods/services to an increasing population from a static base.... rather than euthanizing the olds.

Are you just ignoring the 7 yr time difference?

we do have "pills" (procedures) that increase life expectancy without allowing for economic contribution right now, and we aren't figuring out how to increase productivity enough (something we would do regardless to improve life conditions), which is why the olds are becoming an ever increasing burden in Italy, Germany, south Korea, Japan and so on.

and again, no matter how many times you people obscene use the euthanasia word mistakenly, not doing your best to keep a person alive no matter what isn't euthanasia.

it is so much different than euthanasia that even the Catholic church doesn't consider it such.

just check th "futile medical care" debate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futile_m...

As a reminder that having a public healthcare system means rationing of care, the NHS just decided not to use two recently discovered drugs that slow Alzheimer's onset (they are approved in the USA).

Motivation is side effects but also high costs. And ofc side effects aren't as bad as Alzheimer's...

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...

Do you realise there is a big difference between a paedophile and a child sex offender?

I do until the pedo actively seeks to satisfy his desires .

When you start buying videos of raped children around you are actively contributing to the raping of children so the difference disappears.

This kind of reasoning is well accepted and the base rationale for treating the mere possession of child pornography as a very severe crime in most countries.

A person who is sexually attracted to children is a potential time bomb in society but as long as he never acts on those desires he is far less dangerous than someone who does, clearly.

But this isn't the case we were discussing

The story can be presented over-drmatically. These alzheimers drugs are in the early stage of asessment and it's finely balanced decisions. The EU and the UK are proceedin fairly sensibly. Trials are continuing and as (if) the benefits become clearer then it would be very suprising not to seem them on the NHS.

The very rapid advance and vast expense of new drugs which are obviosuly pushed very hard by the manufacturers is a real problem. But a very good problem even if no system is going to implement this perfectly.

In the UK then the best bet for the very new stuff is to get on a clinical trial. This tech looks awesome

https://www.theguardian.com/society/arti...

It's sensible if you have to pay for it. That's the point. You have to RATION care, you have to DENY care that WORKS because it's too expensive for the benefits it generates.

Which is what some people here called euthanasia before lol (it isn't).

There is no problem at all with expensive drugs if no one is mandated to pay for them. Just allow them to be sold though

It's not necessarily sensible ify ou pay for it. It's close. As it ceases to be close then it will be available. In the meantime there are usually trials you can get on.

The problem of rationing on the NHS is very real but it's almost entirely time rationing.

Sorry you're wrong about their being no problem of expensive novel drugs. There's an unavoidable problem because undertsandably there is huge pressure to get drugs that have minimal, no or even negative benefits from those who are desperate.

Right so going back to your original point:

Therefore, a paedophile who never acts on their desires is clearly less dangerous than the worst racist (e.g., that guy you talked about earlier in the thread who got locked up for stirring up racial hatred).

I can't elaborate further without breaking forum rules sorry

I'm sure you could colour between the lines if you tried hard enough.