Cameron Backs 'Life Means Life' Sentences
Poll
Should Life Should Mean Life?
David Cameron has said "life should mean life" as the government considers US-style 100-year prison sentences for murderers and serious offenders.
The prime minister's comments come as the Conservatives consider alternatives to "whole-life" sentences.
The government is looking at the plan after a European court ruled in 2013 that such sentences breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 100-year terms would allow sentence reviews, satisfying the court.
'Restore respectability'
The proposed change in sentencing regulations for England and Wales comes as Conservative ministers prepare to publish reforms to the UK's human rights laws.
They want Britain's Supreme Court to have the final say in cases relating to human rights, rather than the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.
The ECHR ruled in July that whole-life sentences - allowed under English law - breached the European Convention on Human Rights because they did not include the possibility of a "right to review".
The government was given six months to respond to the decision, which Mr Cameron has said he "profoundly disagreed" with.
He told the BBC on Thursday: "There are some people who commit such dreadful crimes that they should be sent to prison.
"Life should mean life and whatever the European Court has said we must put in place arrangements to make sure that can continue."
One option now being considered by the government is a plan to allow judges to impose jail terms of hundreds of years, which would potentially allow offenders to have their sentences reviewed and reduced.
Policing minister Damian Green, who leads the committee responsible for drawing up reforms to limit the influence of the Strasbourg court on British life, told The Daily Telegraph: "British laws must be made in Britain. I want to restore the respectability of human rights."
The Prison Reform Trust's Juliet Lyon said the government was trying to "dodge complying with the Human Rights Act".
"It sounds like a dangerous nonsense," she said. "What it risks is further inflation in sentencing. People serving life sentences are serving three years longer than they did 10 years ago."
Human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC said that sentencing people to hundreds of years of imprisonment was a "cruel and unusual punishment", and was contrary to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
"There is a place for mercy," he added.
The government's move comes as the killers of murdered British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death outside Woolwich barracks in south-east London in May last year, await sentencing.
Mr Justice Sweeney said he would pass sentence on Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, after a key Appeal Court ruling on the use of whole life terms later in January.
There are currently 52 criminals in England and Wales serving whole-life prison terms.
Lawyers at the Ministry of Justice have confirmed they are looking at whether the law needs to be changed to allow judges to hand down more severe sentences.
Under the US system, very long prison sentences are often imposed by states as an alternative to the death penalty.
In August last year, Ariel Castro, who abducted three women and held them captive for more than a decade, was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, plus 1,000 years.
He was found hanged in his cell in Ohio in September.
The prime minister's comments come as the Conservatives consider alternatives to "whole-life" sentences.
The government is looking at the plan after a European court ruled in 2013 that such sentences breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 100-year terms would allow sentence reviews, satisfying the court.
'Restore respectability'
The proposed change in sentencing regulations for England and Wales comes as Conservative ministers prepare to publish reforms to the UK's human rights laws.
They want Britain's Supreme Court to have the final say in cases relating to human rights, rather than the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.
The ECHR ruled in July that whole-life sentences - allowed under English law - breached the European Convention on Human Rights because they did not include the possibility of a "right to review".
The government was given six months to respond to the decision, which Mr Cameron has said he "profoundly disagreed" with.
He told the BBC on Thursday: "There are some people who commit such dreadful crimes that they should be sent to prison.
"Life should mean life and whatever the European Court has said we must put in place arrangements to make sure that can continue."
One option now being considered by the government is a plan to allow judges to impose jail terms of hundreds of years, which would potentially allow offenders to have their sentences reviewed and reduced.
Policing minister Damian Green, who leads the committee responsible for drawing up reforms to limit the influence of the Strasbourg court on British life, told The Daily Telegraph: "British laws must be made in Britain. I want to restore the respectability of human rights."
The Prison Reform Trust's Juliet Lyon said the government was trying to "dodge complying with the Human Rights Act".
"It sounds like a dangerous nonsense," she said. "What it risks is further inflation in sentencing. People serving life sentences are serving three years longer than they did 10 years ago."
Human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC said that sentencing people to hundreds of years of imprisonment was a "cruel and unusual punishment", and was contrary to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
"There is a place for mercy," he added.
The government's move comes as the killers of murdered British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death outside Woolwich barracks in south-east London in May last year, await sentencing.
Mr Justice Sweeney said he would pass sentence on Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, after a key Appeal Court ruling on the use of whole life terms later in January.
There are currently 52 criminals in England and Wales serving whole-life prison terms.
Lawyers at the Ministry of Justice have confirmed they are looking at whether the law needs to be changed to allow judges to hand down more severe sentences.
Under the US system, very long prison sentences are often imposed by states as an alternative to the death penalty.
In August last year, Ariel Castro, who abducted three women and held them captive for more than a decade, was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, plus 1,000 years.
He was found hanged in his cell in Ohio in September.
Interesting though I can't see it going through with the EU hanging around. Do you agree or think this would be a bad idea?
Scroll to see replies
For mass murder i.e terrorist attacks - Yes
Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.
Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.
Isn't the sentence to do with however long inside and you're let out for good behaviour on parole for the rest of the sentence, you can be taken back in at any time without a trial or bureaucracy.
This should obviously be scaled down to how dangerous people are though. Any repeated offence and never let them out/no more parole. I think the public are worth more than an offender.
This should obviously be scaled down to how dangerous people are though. Any repeated offence and never let them out/no more parole. I think the public are worth more than an offender.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Bill_Gates
For mass murder i.e terrorist attacks - Yes
Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.
Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.
That's a nice analogy
Original post by Hopple
The ECHR need to **** off. If we deem a criminal to be so dangerous and heinous that we want them out of contact with the public, then we should be able to do it. Whilst sentencing someone to millennia in prison looks ridiculous, I blame the ECHR for pushing us there.
Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
Original post by No Man
Yes. The US has one of the best prison systems in my opinion (policing is a different story) the UK should go one step further towards copying the US prison system by getting prisoners to do work/labor rather than sit in a cell all day.
And create an out of control prison industrial complex where there is a financial incentive to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible and as many times as possible leading to sky high recidivism rates, next to zero rehabilitation and an outrageously large prison population?
Original post by Captain Haddock
Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
They can suggest stuff, but we should not be bound by their decisions.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
And create an out of control prison industrial complex where there is a financial incentive to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible and as many times as possible leading to sky high recidivism rates, next to zero rehabilitation and an outrageously large prison population?
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
And create an out of control prison industrial complex where there is a financial incentive to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible and as many times as possible leading to sky high recidivism rates, next to zero rehabilitation and an outrageously large prison population?
A wonderful post. I completely agree!
It can have its problems, if you go to prison knowing 100% you are never getting out then they would likely not hesitate to commit crimes in prison. If mixed with general population they would likely just prove bad influences on other prisoners and crime in prison would also likely soar.
I don't necessarily think the public is crying out for whole life sentences, but instead current sentences being more harsh. People getting 20-25 years for a pre-meditated grizzly murder is clearly pretty pathetic, but i think 40-50 year sentences would be more effective than 100 year as at least the prisoner would have hope of getting out, which would then in-turn give them a reason to behave in prison and reform their lives.
There needs to be a good balance between retribution and rehabilitation, i think currently we focus to much on rehabilitation which often is just a insult to victims of crime. However a lock them up and throw away the key approach isn't really effective either, American prisons are infested with gangs and violence and often those leaving prison are even worse then when they went in.
I don't necessarily think the public is crying out for whole life sentences, but instead current sentences being more harsh. People getting 20-25 years for a pre-meditated grizzly murder is clearly pretty pathetic, but i think 40-50 year sentences would be more effective than 100 year as at least the prisoner would have hope of getting out, which would then in-turn give them a reason to behave in prison and reform their lives.
There needs to be a good balance between retribution and rehabilitation, i think currently we focus to much on rehabilitation which often is just a insult to victims of crime. However a lock them up and throw away the key approach isn't really effective either, American prisons are infested with gangs and violence and often those leaving prison are even worse then when they went in.
So the government wants to circumvent a law. The irony.
Not only this, I find the disdain towards echr very worrisome. Since when is upholding a decision that basic means you can't treat people like a piece of **** a chore?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not only this, I find the disdain towards echr very worrisome. Since when is upholding a decision that basic means you can't treat people like a piece of **** a chore?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes.
Life sentences have only been handed out in exceptional cases, and those who have received them really deserved them. People like Mark Bridger- I'm sure there is no one out there that really believes he should ever come out. Some people are monsters and will never be 'cured'- it's safer for everyone to keep them out of society.
Life sentences have only been handed out in exceptional cases, and those who have received them really deserved them. People like Mark Bridger- I'm sure there is no one out there that really believes he should ever come out. Some people are monsters and will never be 'cured'- it's safer for everyone to keep them out of society.
What is so wrong with allowing prisoners the right to have their sentence reviewed? There is a big difference between a sentence review and allowing a prisoner out of prison.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
The ECHR started with honourable intentions and has done a lot of good, but what people object to is how today they come up with totally stupid judgements on issues which have nothing to do with human rights, and infringe on sovereignty. The ECHR has changed hugely since it was created, it was never intended to be what it is today.
The ECHR's judgements on life sentences (and prisoner voting) need to be ignored completely. Yes, life sentences should mean life. If someone commits a crime which is enough to get them a life sentence in prison, life should really mean life.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
And create an out of control prison industrial complex where there is a financial incentive to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible and as many times as possible leading to sky high recidivism rates, next to zero rehabilitation and an outrageously large prison population?
-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)
I think we should probably keep it around.
And create an out of control prison industrial complex where there is a financial incentive to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible and as many times as possible leading to sky high recidivism rates, next to zero rehabilitation and an outrageously large prison population?
Well said - couldn't rep you unfortunately but it's good to see someone say something good about what the ECHR does, and why we should (as a result) keep it around.
Original post by james22
I don't really see the point in whole life sentences. What harm can possibly come from reviewing them? If the prisoner needs to be kept locked up they can be, but if it is decided that there is no longer a threat wahts the point in keeping them locked up?
Well punishment for a start. If somebody brutally murdered a loved one of years would you like to see them serve a short sentence just because apparently they aren't a threat anymore? Just because they may have been rehabilitated doesn't mean they should not face punishment for what they have already done.
Then there are those that could just trick the system. Pretend they have been rehabilitated just to get out of prison, even if they actually feel no remorse for what they've done and may become a menace again when leaving prison.
Obviously i'm only talking murderers here but then i suppose they are usually only ever the people who get whole life sentences anyway.
I'll just copy and paste a comment for the Guardian website as I can't put it any better myself:
"What is wrong with having a panel of experts deciding on whether a person is rehabilitated and ready to return to society, rather than making a decision twenty years in advance that can't be changed?"
"What is wrong with having a panel of experts deciding on whether a person is rehabilitated and ready to return to society, rather than making a decision twenty years in advance that can't be changed?"
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can some one mark this small essay i did out of 30 for gcse a christmas carol
- LNAT Essay
- English help
- Time for a state educated Prime Minister?
- LNAT Essay
- Man sentenced for 9 years after planning to assassinate the late queen in 2021
- Life of Pi English lit essay
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- GCSE English
- Re themes gcse question
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- how can I improve this a Christmas carol answer, what mark it would get thank youuuu
- English Language paper 1. (AQA)
- Verbs and Verbal Phrases
- English language nov mocks
- Frankenstein coursework
- Personal statement sob story???
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- English Lit: Othello
- Please mark my Language paper 1 Q2
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
