"Quislings everywhere"

[Feck]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -2011-live

[Pappa]

2.30pm: Delegates debate a motion on tackling violence against women which calls for all women's prisons to be closed and for most women offenders to be housed in supervision centres in the community.

Why? Or rather, why women and not men?

[Hermit]

2.30pm: Delegates debate a motion on tackling violence against women which calls for all women's prisons to be closed and for most women offenders to be housed in supervision centres in the community.

Why? Or rather, why women and not men?

Because only 5% of prisoners are women, so it's an easier problem to fix and nobody will notice if their prisons get closed down.

No way am I going to read the entire blog. As for the liberals being quislings, I don't think so. Liberalism always favours the moneyed strata of society. Equality before the law on its own has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Prohibiting both rich and poor people from sleeping under the bridges of the Seine...

[Pappa]

2.30pm: Delegates debate a motion on tackling violence against women which calls for all women's prisons to be closed and for most women offenders to be housed in supervision centres in the community.

Why? Or rather, why women and not men?

Because only 5% of prisoners are women, so it's an easier problem to fix and nobody will notice if their prisons get closed down.

In what sense is it a problem? Do you mean purely the financial matter of keeping a prison open?

[Clinton Huxley]

The Lib Dems can arse off.

[Hermit]

2.30pm: Delegates debate a motion on tackling violence against women which calls for all women's prisons to be closed and for most women offenders to be housed in supervision centres in the community.

Why? Or rather, why women and not men?

Because only 5% of prisoners are women, so it's an easier problem to fix and nobody will notice if their prisons get closed down.

In what sense is it a problem? Do you mean purely the financial matter of keeping a prison open?

Can you imagine what would happen if the motion was to close all prisons in order to fight violence against men as well as women? Regardless of the fact that most prisoners are either not violent or shouldn't even be in prison in the first place, there is a huge difference between freeing 5% and freeing 100% of them.

[Pappa]

2.30pm: Delegates debate a motion on tackling violence against women which calls for all women's prisons to be closed and for most women offenders to be housed in supervision centres in the community.

Why? Or rather, why women and not men?

Because only 5% of prisoners are women, so it's an easier problem to fix and nobody will notice if their prisons get closed down.

In what sense is it a problem? Do you mean purely the financial matter of keeping a prison open?

Can you imagine what would happen if the motion was to close all prisons in order to fight violence against men as well as women? Regardless of the fact that most prisoners are either not violent or shouldn't even be in prison in the first place, there is a huge difference between freeing 5% and freeing 100% of them.

There was no indication (on the page feck linked to) as to what their reasons were. Is it purely due to prison violence?

[Hermit]

There was no indication (on the page feck linked to) as to what their reasons were. Is it purely due to prison violence?

Yes, I thought that at least the way the blogger expressed it, it wasn't at all clear what they meant. I picked up your very valid question as to why male victims were excluded from the fight against violence, and escalated the absurdity of it all by connecting it with the concomitant proposal to close all women prisons. Your LibDems seem to be a more pathetic bunch of clowns than ours were in the few years leading up to their demise. Another thing they have in common, was to finally openly act in accordance to liberal principles. In Australia it was by supporting the conservatives' GST (a flat 10% tax on almost all goods and services) legislation. That was the final straw. Our LibDems never held many seats, but often enough a sufficient number to hold the balance of power in the senate. Today they don't hold a single one in any of our nine state, territory or federal parliaments. And good riddance to the bastards.

[Pappa]

There was no indication (on the page feck linked to) as to what their reasons were. Is it purely due to prison violence?

Yes, I thought that at least the way the blogger expressed it, it wasn't at all clear what they meant. I picked up your very valid question as to why male victims were excluded from the fight against violence, and escalated the absurdity of it all by connecting it with the concomitant proposal to close all women prisons. Your LibDems seem to be a more pathetic bunch of clowns than ours were in the few years leading up to their demise. Another thing they have in common, was to finally openly act in accordance to liberal principles. In Australia it was by supporting the conservatives' GST (a flat 10% tax on almost all goods and services) legislation. That was the final straw. Our LibDems never held many seats, but often enough a sufficient number to hold the balance of power in the senate. Today they don't hold a single one in any of our nine state, territory or federal parliaments. And good riddance to the bastards.

My innitial thought was that the reason might be to lessen the negative impact on women's families and children when they are sent to prison, as "supervision centres in the community" would presumably be places where women could still look after their own kids. So, my question, "Why not men?" came from that really, but by extension, any perceived rights that a prisoner should have. If a single mum with no support network was sent to a "supervision centres in the community" and allowed to keep her kids with her, why not a single dad in the same situation? Obviously, my point was pure speculation about what the LibDems' intention might be, but the larger question of women getting special treatment because they have a different chromosome still stands.

[MrJonno]

Women are already far less likely to go to jail than men for the same crime because the affect on children is taken into account ( in less serious non-violent crimes this is probably sensible)

[JimC]

Death to Norwegian traitors!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Death to Norwegian traitors!

Quisling is one of the rare individuals to be honored by having his name lower-cased to become an ordinary noun as well as a proper name. Dr. Mudd is the only other example I can think of, and that's iffy. "My name is mud" v. "My name is Mudd." [/obscure even for me.]

[Clinton Huxley]

Death to Norwegian traitors!

Quisling is one of the rare individuals to be honored by having his name lower-cased to become an ordinary noun as well as a proper name. Dr. Mudd is the only other example I can think of, and that's iffy. "My name is mud" v. "My name is Mudd." [/obscure even for me.]

I saw that on National Treasure 2......

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Death to Norwegian traitors!

Quisling is one of the rare individuals to be honored by having his name lower-cased to become an ordinary noun as well as a proper name. Dr. Mudd is the only other example I can think of, and that's iffy. "My name is mud" v. "My name is Mudd." [/obscure even for me.]

I saw that on National Treasure 2......

I got it a few years before that. 1964 I think.