WiseOwl182

... again.

That would depend on, say, any financial and/or political motivations that may or may not exist. Police said there was no crime so it was only a loud argument, which happens in most households from time to time, especially during times of stress, like applying for a new job for example.

Does nobody here ever have arguments with their partners? It's pretty standard in homes up and down the country.

Hear, hear.

Circumstances should be taken into account but we were discussing when all else is equal. In fact if you scroll back a few pages, it was claimed that a female without dependents should be treated with more leniency than a single father.

So I see the BBC have been caught red handed again, after the shambles of a debate the other day: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/19/bbc-facing-questions-anti-semitic-imam-grilled-tory-leadership/ Accusations of poor vetting, along with Emily Maitlis targeting Boris Johnson with follow up questions 23 times; 10 occasions more than anyone else.

Maybe because she's a joke.

Men and women should be treated as equals in order to achieve true equality. This means not including gender bias into sentencing.

Why do you expect a woman to get half the sentence of a man for doing the same crime and with the same circumstances?

I asked if being a parent or being female takes precedence. You answered being female. Why do you feel that way? Why should a criminal be shown more leniency for being female as opposed to being a parent or carer but male?

So I wasn't putting words in your mouth then. Being a childless female should have more leniency than being a male single parent, in your book. In other words, sexism. Obviously. I'm establishing the concept of precedence with someone who has spent 15+ pages arguing without reasoning though.

So should it be being a parent that gets taken into account, or being female? I'm talking generally of course.

Why should being female be taken into account? Your link infers that being a parent or carer should be taken into account in the sentencing. That parent or carer could be either gender. Should the child of a single parent father be punished more than a child of a single parent mother, for example?

Evidence of what? That you believe women who are mothers should be able to commit crime without risk of prison? What about men who are fathers? What about a woman who isn't a mother Vs a man who is a father, who should get the lenient sentence then?

So it's the target that matters rather than the joke? Presumably the BBC would be ok for people to joke about attacks on left wing politicians too then. What about a racist joke about a politician? Would that be worse than a joke about permanently disfiguring and potentially killing one? Who makes these ground rules?

He wasn't, he was saying that whatever the punishment for jokes against left wing politics, the same punishment should be in place for jokes against right wing politics. It doesn't matter if that punishment is nothing at all, it's about addressing the double standards of organisations like the BBC, who treat similar misdemeanours differently according to whether the recipient agrees with their political agenda. That's "dodgy ground", when a publicly funded media organisation has a biased political agenda.

Ok, so it looks like I've fallen for fake news on The Independent site of all places.

15 minute journeys now taking up to 45 minutes. "Traffic has been reduced to a single lane in parts and it is one of the busiest commuter routes into and out of the city." Did you read the article?

What happened to Danny Baker then?

I'm not sure, I think throwing battery acid on someone is about as offensive a joke as possible, politician or not.

At least Sheffield council hasn't done anything as stupid as this yet: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/birmingham-cycle-highway-traffic-motorists-complaints/

Well well well..

It doesn't matter if it happens on other channels that aren't publicly funded with impartiality built into their legal charter. It matters when it's the BBC precisely because they're supposed to be impartial and yet they employ so many left leaning journalists and presenters, who seem to want to make it apparent how they refer to Tory MPs.

Only political opponents will be thinking that. The BBC are supposed to be impartial. They're clearly not.

What bickering? There's a user deliberately being provocative by accusing others of being like Trump, answering questions with questions, and repeatedly refusing to answer direct questions himself. It's not surprising people are pushing for an answer.