Conservative want higher sentences for failure to decrypt child pornography

[John R T Brazier]

Ken perceptively wrote:

> I think people are missing the point. A hanging and flogging call is the
> traditional ritual prelude to a bid for leadership in the Tory party.
> Especially when from someone who by Tory standards is regarded as wet.
> Letwin's comments weren't meant for the likes of us, or even for
> paedophiles, but for the blue-rinsed vampires who will gather at the
> Tory conference in a few weeks. If you can bear to, wind up the action
> replay in your head and try to remember previous autumnal offerings from
> Thatcher, Heseltine, Howard, Portillo, and whatever that bald
> Yorkshireman was called. the present guy. (For some odd reason I can't
> remember anything at all about Ian Duncan Smith from before he became
> their parliamentary leader) All of them have stood up and ranted while
> the BRVs drooled. And all we got for it was some rather odd laws about
> music with repetitive beats.

> Even if Letwin understands the implications of the points he made, he
> will have no intention of implementing them. As a policy proposal it is
> no more to be taken seriously than the Old Labour habit of promising
> nationalisation and welfare reform. Or the New Labour habit of promising
> to ban hunting and cigarette advertising and do something about cars.
> Although as far as I can tell the redder & greener ends of the Labour
> party have never actually believed their parliamentarians when they say
> such things & it just makes them even more suspicious of the leadership,
> while the BRVs seem to fall for it every time and get off on the hanging
> & flogging promises. But then us lefties have always enjoyed criticising
> our so-called leaders in public, while the Tories seem to think that
> unseemly public displays of spineless loyalty are character-building.

> Ken Brown

>>>>John R T Brazier wrote:
>
> > John Brazier wrote:
> > >> Seriously, though, doesn't their think tank actually have
> > >> anyone on board
> > >> who can explain a few of these issues to them?
>
> > David responded accurately:
> > > Since when have the facts or technical reality ever had anything to do
> > > with the way such people formulate policy?
>
> > You're absolutely right, it's just that I now believe that we have the
first
> > example where (given the document is only 3 pages) the Opposition has
> > produced a higher drivel/page ratio than even the Civil Service!
Astounding!
> > We don't need an election now, the 'Conservative Party' has as little
grasp
> > on reality as the 'Labour Party'.

> And if you think this is the *first* example of such a thing you have
> lived a very sheltered life! This is just business as usual

You comments (except the last) are true, but the convention is that when
you're in Opposition, away from the pressures of Government and the
malignancy of the Civil Service, your public declaration of policy is
usually sensible, well-reasoned and, at least, technically accurate. This
enables you to get into power, where once the Civil Service has 'knocked you
into shape', you promptly renegue on your promises and policies (do we on
this list remember "Labour's" actions on coming into power?).

The Tories have subverted this process by producing a document in Opposition
that the Civil Service would be proud of. I still regard this as
extraordinary, and excellent evidence that we live in a system that, for the
moment, has failed. There is no Opposition worthy of the name.

TTFN

John B