Andrew Marr show today...

Can I point out Urmstngran that this was no ‘terrorist who murdered’. This man had not murdered anyone up until this awful attack.

No system is perfect. Real murderers and rapists get released to murder and rape again. But they are only briefly in the news, not ever worth a front page.

urmstongran, I understand the anger and desire to improve public safety but to suggest the two young people murdered on Friday were misguided because of their choice of work suggests that those working in the criminal justice system are misguided. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

Some people lie, cheat and manipulate as the killer Khan did. Anyone who has worked with offenders will confirm that rehabilitation of some people is possible. I'm not convinced that terrorists like Mr Khan are good prospects for rehabilitation. Our focus there should be on less dangerous individuals.

I was working when the Public Protection Indefinite sentences were found to be unlawful. I visited a number of young men serving such sentences, they were without exception the product of the most abusive, neglectful and damaging childhoods. Inevitably, they started using drugs and drinking alcohol at young ages, were hard to reach by services and ended up in a real mess, hence the PII. They seemed to be thriving in the prison system, where they had the clear boundaries and routines they so needed but never had experienced. Every visit, I'd shown certificates confirming they were passing drug tests, working in groups to put a stop to impulsive behaviour, in groups looking at anger management, especially in domestic situations. Since then, we've lost large numbers of the experienced prison staff, including probation officers, to austerity.

We need to invest again in early years, in supporting young parents who are struggling, to rebuild our police, social work, probation, mental health, drug/alcohol support services. I'm not a liberal who says everybody can be rehabilitated, some people are beyond that. However, if we focus in on early years, the evidence suggests we'll have fewer of those hard to reach adults.

Thank you for using my words in your latest tirade lemongrove....as they say "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". On Gransnet for "years and years" eh? Thankfully I never noticed.
Otherwise, I'm most interested to hear the thoughtful personal opinions of sensible, civilised posters - whatever their politics!

Urmstongran I think we have learned from history (or should have) that harsh penalties to not act as deterrents.

Think back to the 19thC when children were executed for poaching (or sent to the colonies). Think of the murders that have been committed against family or close friends that weren't prevented by the existence of capital punishment.

We need something other than deterrents.

Specki4....do give it up, it was actually you that quite out of the blue unleashed ‘a tirade’ against me, as anyone can read on here.
Thankfully, I have never noticed your name before either.

It’s true Dinah that harsh punishments don’t act as a deterrent, but in the case of terrorism offences and really violent offenders, keeping them in prison for longer keeps people safer from them for longer.
It does need a proper review by all interested parties though to determine what should now happen.

" *
" ^The BBC managed to make two howlers in the space of a week. First, they told Labour and the SNP that the Andrew Neil interviews would be conducted with all party leaders, when in fact they had not actually got the Tories agreement for Neil to interview Boris Johnson. Neil's interviews with Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon were aired, and the Corbyn interview in particular generated negative headlines in all the big UK papers, a fact the BBC live programmes editor Rob Burley was happy to boast about on Twitter* .

" They then managed to compound the error in wake of the terrorist attack on London Bridge on Friday. Having previously stated that Johnson would not get to be interviewed on the Andrew Marr Show until he agreed to be interviewed by Neil first, they went back on that decision following the London Bridge attack, saying it was now "in the public interest" for Johnson to appear on Marr .

" *Why they thought it was so essential for the public to see a transparent opportunist like Johnson blame Labour for the terrorist attack in the most crass way possible is anyone's guess. But it only served to compound the view that the BBC is run by people who are incapable of neutrality in this election. "The problem for the BBC is that it is easier to lose trust than it is to gain it. Especially if this election goes Johnson's way, many on the left of politics will never forgive the BBC for its coverage. If you doubt that, see the Yes side in Scotland following the 2014 referendum^ .

Ben Wray, Common A.M.

Sorry, I made such a mess of the italics still typing with just my useless left hand.

......but, don’t you think that the PM should appear on tv to talk about the latest terrorist attack?
Am sure that the general public would expect it.

And should he not also be interviewed by Andrew Neil?

All prime ministers are interviewed after a terrorist atrocity.

None but Johnson have attempted to make political capital out of the deaths

Why is he so scared of being interviewed by fellow lifelong Tory Andrew Neil?

They don’t like each other apparently, not sure if the truth in that. But both were up for editor of the Spectator and Neil got it.

Tbh I find it a bit incredible that Johnson was being considered giving his track record.

I think Johnson should have appeared on TV shortly after the atrocity and said what all leaders say. Maybe he should look on YouTube and see how the NZ Prime Minister responded.

Once again, he looked and sounded as though he had a bad hangover and came out with a loud of superficial garbage and lies.

Andew Neil should set his own date and time, this week- if Boris does not come up with his own. He should then be empty chaired- the questions asked - and a silence for 1 minute each time with the camera on the chair. A cardboard effigy could be placed on chair, or just empty.

Simple, end of - no excuse.

Talking of telling lies.....

boris-johnson-lies.com/

Johnson has to avoid a Trump this week as well. The Tories are aware that trump is strongly disliked in the U.K.

oh I hope Trump will hug and kiss him, and give him thumbs up, and say he can't wait for the Deals with the NHS, hormone cattle and bleached chickens to be done, and for workers rights to be matched with USA

The interview helped me make up my mind. Boris has zero integrity and will nor be getting my vote. The politicking after the,tragic events on Friday for me was one line crossed too far.

our postal votes had gone already - and not for him either, for sure.

Apparently tons of Tories have been complaining to the BBC that Andrew Marr was too hard on him - really ahahaha.

Andrew Neil next, even though he is also a staunch Con and has always been he will eat him alive. If Johnson does not give date and time to the BBC by tomorrow- the interview should go ahead, and Johnson empty chaired, or cardboard cut out - question asked- then camera on silent chair for a while, and next question. No ifs, no buts ...

jura I'd be surprised if Marr is a Tory.

Andrew Marr is certainly not a Tory. His late father-in-law was the labour Lord (Jack) Ashley. His wife, Jackie Ashley is a journalist who has written for both the New Statesman and The Guardian.
(thanks to Wiki for relevant information)

BBC branded 'shameful' for allowing PM Boris Johnson to be interviewed by Andrew Marr instead of Andrew Neil

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/bbc-branded-shameful-for-allowing-pm-boris-johnson-to-be-interviewed-by-andrew-marr-instead-of-andrew-neil-1-5054877?__twitter_impression=true

No Varian for allowing him to dictate to the BBC - not that he wasn’t pushing on an open door anyway.

Boris Johnson's interview with Andrew Marr fact-checked by BBC Reality check.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50624056