Health (check)
Royals (check)
Weather (check)
Euro (check)

and Amanda Holden in (Brain) Dead Blonde Corner.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Where does the 100° 'forecast' come from? AFAIK, it's only ever reached 100° twice in Britain, and never outside of the extreme south east of England. It can't be possible to predict a temperature that precisely weeks in advance.

Prediction not their strong point. From Sunday 15th May - repeating again just to show they haven't got a frigging clue and must be making it up.

Er... pedant alert. 15th May was a Tuesday and that's not the Sunday Express.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

'How Queen saved our wedding day' - she paid for it? They played a free gig at the reception? Come on Express, you can't leave us hanging like that.

If you're such a pedant why didn't you spot it earlier?

Because Matt didn't claim it was the 15th of May edition?
Because I don't bother with the Express thread much?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I think the 100F comes just after the arctic storms thy were on about for the whole of spring.

I find the whole debate around prisoners voting absurd. Surely, anyone can see that if the same government that decides what is a crime can take away your right to vote, then you open up a bit of a dangerous slippery slope?

I know it's a long way down, but personally I'm very very glad I live somewhere where the ECHR can over-rule people who depend on headline-grabbing to stay in their jobs.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

I'm not sure.
I take the JS Mill line (sort of) that a crime is when one person abrogates the liberties of another person, in effect removes from them one or more of their 'rights'. In return the state takes away the liberties (or rights) of the perpetrator.
In serious cases where the perp has shown themselves to be capable of acting in an antisocial manner then certain 'human rights' are temporarily suspended. Not the right to life, property or relationships, obviously, but liberty and the right to participate in civil society.

So I don't have a problem with the principle of removing the right to vote, it seems to me the question is where the threshold lies.
I've seen suggestions that prisoners convicted of crimes which carry a maximum penalty of a certain length (I think it was 3 months) should keep the vote. Again, no problem with that as a principle.

This could lead to an interesting national debate on the treatment of offenders, but I'm not holding my breath. The tabloids will ensure that doesn't happen.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I mostly agree, my problem comes in the 'slippery slope' scenario whereby the government could theoretically decide to start taking political prisoners and deciding that they aren't allowed to vote. Disenfranchisment is a route to dictatorship. I know it's an absurdly alarmist argument to use (particularly in the UK), but I do firmly believe we need to keep an eye on the basics and make sure people like Theresa May have as little discretion as possible.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

I dunno - might see a last huzzah from loyalists when Brooks and Coulson start thinking about who they're going to vote for next time.

_________________
Mailwatch. Love us or leave us.
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/

So what we need is an addition to the sentencing tariff - "Norman Stanley Fletcher you are going down for three years and you will lose your right to vote". Or not, depending on the offence and sentence.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.