ONLY on the BBC would we catch a discussion on whether Labour was “too tough” on crime (!!!) yet THAT is exactly what was foisted upon us earlier today. In order to provide that balance for which the BBC is so famed, only a Labour spokesman was interviewed. In this case it was that charmer Sadiq Khan. One dimension, revisionist and floating in BBC bias.
LABOUR "TOO TOUGH" ON CRIME?
Bookmark the permalink.
Just listening to him makes me lose brain cells. Less good? So poor then? It’s on a par with Negative growth…
Sadiq Khan wonders why putting first time offenders and/or short term offenders in with hardened criminals increases the chance of re-offending…
Perhaps if Sadiq’s expenses had been followed up more he could have found out about re-offending?
Yeah, the Labour Government was too tough on those Labour MPs caught fiddling their expenses. 😀
I heard the Khan prat, too. He kept addressing John as, er “John”, rather too frequently to sound genuine. And he does find some funny places to put full stops in sentences. Very difficult to listen to without seething, and even more difficult to believe. Wasn’t he something to do with transport when the “other” lot of shysters were in power (reminder to the BBC: they’re not, now…)? He was pretty shit at that, too, as I recall.
Apart from the blindingly obvious, two other thoughts came to mind listening to that idiot:
1. Labour only had a good record on crime if you believe their constantly evolving ways of counting it.
2. “John” was acting as Labour Party spokesman no. 2 for that item, putting out their crazy ideas on crime as if they were unarguable. Why didn’t he ask the difficult questions of the Labour Party rep? There can surely be no bias in his genes, can there?
I heard this interview and was disappointed that that SK wasn’t probed a bit more deeply , stating that crime had decreased by an impossible amount was accepted without demur and none of the usual forensic skills on show.
Btw , Labours choice of spokesman on crime defies belief. He was borderline criminal on expenses and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him if the RoP were involved in any decision he had to make.