Jump to content

Next permanent Scotland manager


Richey Edwards

.  

253 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Stepping back and letting them make the decision.

If your safeguard is a risk assessment you have to let it happen. 

It also didn't help accusing Dryden of lying about changing gender - that played right into the hands of those who opposed the bill.

Couldn't have put it better

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Common sense has gone out of the window with this on both sides imo, I think it's reasonable for somebody charged with double rape who has shown no sign of gender dysphoria before and suddenly starts wearing a wig and a pink anorak when they're about to go to trial not to automatically be given benefit of the doubt.

That's not the point though is it? If you suggest that the safeguard to ensure the safety of others in especially high risk scenarios, and the appropriate placement of prisoners, is that there will be a risk assessment, you cannot override that, before it has even happened, on a whim because an ex-screw is mouthing off in the press and you keep getting asked about it. You either show that you have robust policies to deal with outlying cases, based around expert judgement and established parameters, or you show you have a policy which is made of vapour.

Edited by Genuine Hibs Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

^^^ transphobe who rejects the fundamental right to self-ID expressed in the GRA 

I'd think this bit of the new GRR bill might exclude someone's application if they only applied for it after being arrested for a double rape.

image.png.bb0d1ce5768f679d19364b6cff7a7c36.png

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Couldn't have put it better

That's not the point though is it? If you suggest that the safeguard to ensure the safety of others in especially high risk scenarios, and the appropriate placement of prisoners, is that there will be a risk assessment, you cannot override that, before it has even happened, on a whim because an ex-screw is mouthing off in the press and you keep getting asked about it. You either show that you have robust policies to deal with outlying cases, based around expert judgement and established parameters, or you show you have a policy which is made of vapour.

If the risk assessment was that there would be no risk by putting a double rapist in a woman's prison before they were fully assessed, as they would be kept in solitary confinement, why couldn't they have been safely put in solitary in a men's prison until a decision was made? I just find the decision made and the coincident timing of it hard to understand. It's not like they have hunners of cases to deal with, just two last year I believe. The Justice system isn't a perfect insular world that doesn't need to pay attention to public perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the debate a bit behind, but all empty platitudes from the three so far. Fix the NHS by diverting all the money to front line staff, presumably the nurses can handle running the payroll, laundry services, and building maintenance, while the doctors can order supplies and negotiate with the drug companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagreed with quite a lot of what  Salmond said and almost everything Sturgeon came out with but by f**k you could not argue with their ability to engage and communicate.

This choice of three - maybe as a result of having been formed under such strong personalities- really haven’t progressed much beyond the sixth form. Andrew Neil, and God forbid even Kuensberg, would wipe the floor with any of them inside 5 minutes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Maybe not the right thread, but I wonder if those bumping their gums about all the problems in Scotland would prefer to live in Sunak’s England or Starmer’s England.

Whataboutery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Imagining the type of guy who goes to a SNP leadership debate and complains that they want to break up the UK and nothing they say could persuade him to vote for them.

Strange man.

There's something to be said for a debate of prospective leaders being held in front of a wider audience than SNP members alone, but an audience chosen by the BBC was always going to be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

There's something to be said for a debate of prospective leaders being held in front of a wider audience than SNP members alone, but an audience chosen by the BBC was always going to be ridiculous.

I suspect he applied for Question Time and got offered this instead. 

I'm sure someone will buy him a pint for it down the golf club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...