Labour Purge Begins

[Hermit]

Exercising one's conscience vote is very principled and all, but it is also an act of rebellion against and criticism of one's own party. Corbyn has done that 428 times while his party was in government. Looks like he does not approve of rebellion and criticism so much, now that he is on the receiving end of it. Seems a bit hypocritical, or perhaps even Stalinesque.

[mistermack]

What kind of logic is that?!? Conscious voting is in no way equivalent to openly bitching in the media. FFS. Is it "black is white" time again??

It's not "conscious" it's "conscience".
And do you imagine that he voted against his government over 400 times without saying a word about it? (or openly bitching, as you put it) ?

[pErvinalia]

Exercising one's conscience vote is very principled and all, but it is also an act of rebellion against and criticism of one's own party. Corbyn has done that 428 times while his party was in government. Looks like he does not approve of rebellion and criticism so much, now that he is on the receiving end of it. Seems a bit hypocritical, or perhaps even Stalinesque.

Bullshit. He's acting legitimately within the political process. Crossing the floor is an accepted democratic process, and indeed it has to be if one is to retain the label of "democracy" in their system. Openly attacking your leader and undermining his massive mandate in the media is absolutely nothing like that. I can't believe you two are seriously arguing an equivalency between Corbyn and the cowards who are attacking him now, even after he offered them a truce and gave some of them shadow secretary positions.

[pErvinalia]

What kind of logic is that?!? Conscious voting is in no way equivalent to openly bitching in the media. FFS. Is it "black is white" time again??

It's not "conscious" it's "conscience".
And do you imagine that he voted against his government over 400 times without saying a word about it? (or openly bitching, as you put it) ?

I can imagine all sorts of things. But you are making a specific claim. It's up to you to back it up if you want. Or not.

[Strontium Dog]

Corbyn keeps calling for Tony Blair, the most successful leader his party has ever had, to be put on trial for war crimes!

If that doesn't count as "dissing", I don't know what does.

[MrJonno]

I think its pretty obvious Corbyn is just a Tory plant, from the school of Donald Trump plants where one party puts a loony in their enemies camp

[Jason]

Well said, except here it's 18. I've always wondered why it isn't 17 years and 3 months, if they really think life begins at conception.

I've often wondered how the US has ended up with the age being 16 in most states, 17 in a few, and 18 in the rest. That really is a pathetic state of affairs. Why on earth should that be something to be decided at local level?

Personally I would adopt 16 all over. With a new offence of getting a girl pregnant before the age of 18. Which would only apply to men over the age of 20.

If the younger generations become fair game at age 16 why is it that men over the age of 20 should be punished for successful accomplishment of the act - in the biological imperative sense of it at least? The young are stupid and excused for not employing proper contraceptive methods? That seems very silly to me.

[MrJonno]

It's not the actual age that is important but the purpose of the age of consent which is to protect young people not to protect public morals.
Two 15 year olds having consenting sex even when the legal minimum is 16 is a potential matter for parents and/or social services not the law. A 15 year old being pressured to have sex by a 16 year has extra ammunition to say no (ie its illegal). Generally Britain on the whole gets its right (ie it ignores the age of consent laws unless people are very young or their is a genuine exploitation taking place)

[Jason]

I'm not sure I understand. How is it worse for a 56 year old woman to press herself on a 16 year old boy than an 18 year old woman to do the same? I deliberately reverse the roles of the sexes to avoid the standard 'dirty old man' pitfalls common to this line of inquiry.

[mistermack]

Well said, except here it's 18. I've always wondered why it isn't 17 years and 3 months, if they really think life begins at conception.

I've often wondered how the US has ended up with the age being 16 in most states, 17 in a few, and 18 in the rest. That really is a pathetic state of affairs. Why on earth should that be something to be decided at local level?

Personally I would adopt 16 all over. With a new offence of getting a girl pregnant before the age of 18. Which would only apply to men over the age of 20.

If the younger generations become fair game at age 16 why is it that men over the age of 20 should be punished for successful accomplishment of the act - in the biological imperative sense of it at least? The young are stupid and excused for not employing proper contraceptive methods? That seems very silly to me.

You're entitled to your feelings about it. You don't really make it clear why it's silly.
A 20+ man has had four more years to grow up and get his feelings under control, than a 16 year old girl. And the man isn't going to get pregnant, is he?
To me that's enough of a difference to treat them differently under law.
And it might cut down on unwanted teenage pregnancies, if the men decide to use a condom, rather than risk a conviction.

Nothing's perfect, but I don't think it's silly. Let alone VERY silly.

[Jason]

If, by age 16, the young people haven't learned to "get their feelings under control" and employ contraceptives properly there's something very wrong with our public education system. Why is it you assume that from age 16 the male has to, and reasonably will, undergo a maturation period - during which it is excusable under law to impregnate women as young as 16 - after which he will know he must responsibly exercise the use of contraceptives to enjoy the reproductive act with anyone so young? It seems you only want to facilitate your parochial view of sexual maturity as occurring suddenly at the age of 16 after which you grant a grace period for irresponsible behaviour while allowing the more elderly to indulge in coitus with the newly sexually mature provided they produce no children.

That's very silly.

Either it is acceptable to have sex with a 16 year old or it is not. Else you had better do better in explaining this silly proviso of yours. I don't have a problem with the age of consent exceeding the age of sexual maturity, as it does when set at 16. Children need time to mature emotionally commensurate with their sexual maturity and a 'safe' period between the age of 12 to 16 seems very reasonable to me. But that isn't what you're describing.

[mistermack]

Don't blame me for the silly situation, where you have a cut-off age.
I'm just prepared to work with that, as it seems that nobody has got a better idea that actually works. But like I said, it's not perfect.

As far as making a distinction about sex that doesn't get a girl pregnant, and sex that does, I would say that it's silly to treat both the same. The consequences of one are much more serious than the consequences of the other.

And treating men over the age of 20 differently is no different to treating girls of 16 differently the day after their birthday. It's not perfect, but I think it's better than ignoring the damage that teenage pregnancies do.

What you seem to ignore, is that when something is the law, people behave differently, on the whole. Whether you agree with a law or not, you bear it in mind, and if you break it, the consequences are your own fault.
Men over the age of 20 would need to bear in mind that they risk more than just a paternity bill, if they get a girl under the age of 18 pregnant.
If you break that law, you can hardly pretend that you didn't know. Everyone would know that law.

[pErvinalia]

Corbyn keeps calling for Tony Blair, the most successful leader his party has ever had, to be put on trial for war crimes!

If that doesn't count as "dissing", I don't know what does.

Tony Blair isn't in the PLP anymore. He can call him whatever he wants, particularly a war criminal as that would be accurate.

[JimC]

Corbyn has executed Order 66. The Great Labour Purge has begun.

First victim: arch-moderate Simon Danczuk, for the crime of flirting with a young woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35204398

The guy (Danczuk) is not respecting the will of the party. What do you expect should happen when you openly and continually criticise the massively popular leader of your party? People need to keep their criticism of party politics internal or get the fuck out.

There's something about the phrase "the will of the party" that I find slightly chilling...

[pErvinalia]

He was democratically elected by a big margin.