Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR MHoC General Election March 2013 Watch

  • View Poll Results: TSR MHoC General election. Cast your vote:
    TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
    110
    18.09%
    TSR Green Party
    77
    12.66%
    TSR Labour Party
    131
    21.55%
    TSR Liberal Party
    53
    8.72%
    TSR Libertarian Party
    46
    7.57%
    TSR Socialist Party
    69
    11.35%
    tehFrance
    36
    5.92%
    TSR UKIP
    69
    11.35%
    Spoilt Ballot
    17
    2.80%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Where does each party stand on incest: namely whether or not you think it should be illegal and why. Stupid answers will be negged. Jus' sayin'.
    Needless to say any party that fails to answer has no chance of getting my vote.
    Well, incest as defined to be between certain relations is a crime and should remain so. There should therefore be penalties for it, in order to deter. However, in general the problem with incest is that at least one of those involved is being abused or is extremely sexually confused. It can;t all be harsh words and actions, therefore, but must be about helping those in need and dealing with root causes of the problem. In the case of a father having sex with a child, you are probably going to be much harsher towards the parent than if the situation is a brother and a sister who don't know any better (let us say that they are 15 years old and are in foster care). There have to be shades of grey in our policy. Locking up the two in the latter example is going to make matters much worse.

    Also my only female cousin is like... 8? So I have at least 7 years to go.
    Also, how does each party feel about the nature of the UK–US extradition treaty?
    Well, the treaty is a joke and should be revised to be balanced and have proper safeguards for citizens (both ways). But the actual relationship between the two countries, in practical terms, is in our favour. So the situation itself is generally not concerning, but that's just superficial in my view. Constructive change is needed.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Thanks for the reply
    No critique? no further questions? nada? :sad:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Also my only female cousin is like... 8? So I have at least 7 years to go.
    WTF?! :lolwut:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    WTF?! :lolwut:
    I'm not the only one who can troll
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I'm not the only one who can troll
    Disgraceful, this is an election, no trolling allowed, take it seriously man!

    Vote for tehFrance, he takes this **** seriously... :rofl:

    Jokes.

    But yeah, vote me in people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some very bigoted views on incest here. What happened to "TWO CONSENTING ADULTS OMG WE WANT EQUALITY STOP ATTACKING PEOPLES' FREEDOMS!!!"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My views on incest is - if you want to do it fine but when your kid is born with three legs and six eyes don't come running to me for help.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    The legal status of heterosexual incest is a matter of reproductive ethics; is it right for a couple to procreate knowing full-well that their child is likely to live a brutish life? One-third of children from first-cousin partners die before the age of five from severe illness. With that statistic in mind, I do think it is immoral for incestuous couples to have children. To me, it demonstrates that the health and wellbeing of their offspring is of little importance to them. So, yes, I think that (knowingly) creating a child through incest is morally wrong and should remain illegal. I don't in all honesty care about whether it would stain the social quilt of society, or whatever the conservative argument is, though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    I presume you envisage this as a top-down reform imposed by the centre?
    I don't understand your question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    My views on incest is - if you want to do it fine but when your kid is born with three legs and six eyes don't come running to me for help.
    Welcome to the libertarian party. If you want a welcome pack, we politely suggest you make your own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    The legal status of heterosexual incest is a matter of reproductive ethics; is it right for a couple to procreate knowing full-well that their child is likely to live a brutish life? One-third of children from first-cousin partners die before the age of five from severe illness. With that statistic in mind, I do think it is immoral for incestuous couples to have children. To me, it demonstrates that the health and wellbeing of their offspring is of little importance to them. So, yes, I think that (knowingly) creating a child through incest is morally wrong and should remain illegal. I don't in all honesty care about whether it would stain the social quilt of society, or whatever the conservative argument is, though.
    Which of course leads to the interesting question: is it morally right for people to have kids without checking to see if they are genetic disease carriers, and if they are, should they then avoid having children who are at high risk of genetic disease?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I don't understand your question.
    Then why would we trust you with education policies? It's a simple one: how are you going to implement this rejuvenation of grammar schools? Is it, as was partly the case for their abolition (an attempt by Thatcher to kill comprehensives), that local education authorities will choose to adopt them; or, as seems to be the implication of your posts, is it the case that you have decreed the necessity of grammar schools and will implement the policy from on high?

    It's, as I say, a simple question: do you trust schools, teachers and LEAs to know what's best for children or do you think you know better?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Which of course leads to the interesting question: is it morally right for people to have kids without checking to see if they are genetic disease carriers, and if they are, should they then avoid having children who are at high risk of genetic disease?
    It isn't quite the same situation. People who commit incest are able to have children who are perfectly healthy with half the worlds population minus their family, more if you include IVF or what have you for LGBT couples. Those with genetic diseases cannot do so. Personally, were I in such a situation I would choose to adopt instead, but I'm undecided on whether or not the State should get involved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Welcome to the libertarian party. If you want a welcome pack, we politely suggest you make your own.
    I agree (if that is indeed your implication) that it is a rather odd position to take for someone supposed to be aligned to the left, so to speak.


    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    My views on incest is - if you want to do it fine but when your kid is born with three legs and six eyes don't come running to me for help.
    What are your views, then, on the NHS treating people with smoking related illnesses?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Where does each party stand on incest: namely whether or not you think it should be illegal and why.
    I think JPKC is spot on about the legality of incest in his earlier post. The risk of serious illness or defects for children created by an incestuous relationship adds an ethical dimension that the state must ensure is safeguarded.

    Also, how does each party feel about the nature of the UK–US extradition treaty?
    Our extradition treaty should be ripped up and rewritten. Currently, it heavily benefits US interests but has never allowed us equal terms.

    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    I'm interested in knowing more about the Secret Courts, I've only briefly read over it and would like to hear what The Liberals are going to do to stop these
    Various pieces of legislation over the years, ostensibly under the 'anti-terror' banner, have seriously damaged civil liberties in the UK. Most recently, the Justice and Security Bill has allowed trials of terror suspects to happen in secret - without a jury and without any transparency.

    This goes against the very basic principles of British justice, where every citizen is entitled to a jury and open trial. We intend to repeal this disgraceful legislation that has pretty much been forced through the back door with little parliamentary scrutiny IRL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    This goes against the very basic principles of British justice, where every citizen is entitled to a jury and open trial. We intend to repeal this disgraceful legislation that has pretty much been forced through the back door with little parliamentary scrutiny IRL.
    Well, you say that, but it's been a feature of Northern Irish justice for years and was used extensively to deal with the members of the IRA and unionist terrorists. Also British justice is a misnomer when we have a number of different legal systems in operation in these islands.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    This goes against the very basic principles of British justice, where every citizen is entitled to a jury and open trial. We intend to repeal this disgraceful legislation that has pretty much been forced through the back door with little parliamentary scrutiny IRL.
    I've chosen to highlight this point because it is exactly this which confuses me about the MHoC generally. (I agree with the point itself, by the way.)


    So, in the MHoC, do we base things to an extent on RL or not? Wherever finances etc. seem to be concerned, people always come out with "oh, but the TSR economy is nothing like that, therefore..."

    If anyone could actually clarify this it would be helpful. Thanks.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Well, you say that, but it's been a feature of Northern Irish justice for years and was used extensively to deal with the members of the IRA and unionist terrorists.
    True, it's unfortunate parliament has not been more proactive in preventing the erosion of judicial rights for all over the decades - including terrorists.

    Also British justice is a misnomer when we have a number of different legal systems in operation in these islands.
    All of Britain's legal systems include the use of a jury for serious criminal cases, so although English, Scots and NI law may differ significantly they all agree on providing a fundamental civil right that has been eroded over time.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I've chosen to highlight this point because it is exactly this which confuses me about the MHoC generally. (I agree with the point itself, by the way.)


    So, in the MHoC, do we base things to an extent on RL or not? Wherever finances etc. seem to be concerned, people always come out with "oh, but the TSR economy is nothing like that, therefore..."

    If anyone could actually clarify this it would be helpful. Thanks.
    The general precedence here is that RL law is considered TSR law unless repealed or changed here.

    Finances are entirely separate though - we have our own, significantly different tax rates outlined in the most recent budget. This affects the validity of applying RL economic forecasts here, as our significantly different tax rates and legislation not present in RL would probably result in a different economic picture. Hence why Labour faced questions here over the "triple dip" that never happened.

    I think Jarred has suggested creating a document where tax rates etc. in TSRland are available to view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    True, it's unfortunate parliament has not been more proactive in preventing the erosion of judicial rights for all over the decades - including terrorists.
    Well true but let's not forget that it was a Liberal Prime Minister responsible for the Black and Tans and all the extra-judicial beatings and shootings that went along with them. To suggest that parliament has somehow "forgotten" its duties is to believe that it ever had a sense of higher purpose in the first place. It did, of course, but not for quite some time now. That we find all manner of people locked up and then tried without the fullest rights possibly afforded to them rather tells us a lot about the state of our country and its attitude to others. Listen to how often an otherwise progressive and liberal man (or woman) will say something casually racist, sexist, homophobic, or some other kind of -ist. We don't live in a happy, free society and our legal system reflects that.

    All of Britain's legal systems include the use of a jury for serious criminal cases, so although English, Scots and NI law may differ significantly they all agree on providing a fundamental civil right that has been eroded over time.
    They do but it's not a civil right, it's a right under the criminal justice system of those three systems. I guess what I was getting at was more the point that since we don't have a unified legal system in operation across the islands (save in the case of the supreme court), it is not possible to speak of 'British' justice. Particularly when, historically speaking, 'British' justice is associated with precisely the kinds of things you're railing against. Historians tend to romanticise the idea of British liberty and British rule of law, but frankly history shows a different tradition altogether. Not really any wonder why we have secret trials when you think about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I agree (if that is indeed your implication) that it is a rather odd position to take for someone supposed to be aligned to the left, so to speak.




    What are your views, then, on the NHS treating people with smoking related illnesses?
    Last time I checked "me" wasn't shorthand for the health service. So if you could refrain from strawmanning me.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.