Prisoners should be treated humanely because they are human beings. However, prison is also a punishment and as such should be unpleasant, but to quote the US Constitution, not a cruel or unusual punishment.

David Boothroyd: "It did not say that people had to be considered unsuitable if they were opposed to homosexuality." Yes it did. Section 97 "The materials relied on by Mr Weston, including in particular the various policies set out in the National Minimum Standards for Fostering, the Statutory Guidance and the defendant's own documents, all go to emphasise the need to value diversity and promote equality and to value, encourage and support children in a non-judgemental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference.... ... In our judgment the local authority was entitled to have regard to these matters; indeed, if the local authority had failed to explore these matters it might very well have found itself in breach of its own guidance and of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance to look no further. Section 99 "If the defendant's treatment is the result of the claimants' expressed antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex relationships it is clear, on authorities which bind us, namely the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Ladele and McFarlane, that it would not be because of their religious belief. Moreover, the defendant's treatment of the claimants would not be less favourable than that afforded other persons who, for reasons other than the religious views of the claimants, expressed objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships contrary to the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the defendant's various policies." It is clearly stated that disapproval of homosexual relationships is considered to be contrary to the National Minimum Standards for Fostering. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

As already pointed out, this video is a poor advert for the arts getting public subsidy. The public will pay voluntarily for genuinely good art.

It doesn't make much sense for the unions to fund something they don't approve of, just so that they can appear more mature.

There is a simple answer to this - home educate children, so that they are brought up by parents, not the state. If children are seriously naughty, smack them - that way they can learn that certain behaviour is unacceptable, but after the punishment is given, the parent and child can move on.

I agree with Tim, this is a good argument for city mayors. At least in the USA, many presidential candidates have had executive experience as state governors. I genuinely want David Cameron to be the next prime minister. But what have we really got to judge his leadership ability on? Not very much, beyond how he has managed the Conservative Party - and that has had always been a great cause of optimism about his stated commitment to localism.

Leaving aside the content of this particular poster, I think it is a good idea to have rapid response adverts like this, while the events are still in the news.

I think this is a great idea. It is also hardly anew, untested idea. There has been elected mayors in the USA for ages. An elected mayor would likely have a higher profile than a leader of a city council, which is better for accountability.

This is sad. It is just copying Labour attacks http://www.labour.org.uk/jedward-david-cameron-george-osborne

Yes there are similarities. But I don't think there is clear evidence of plagiarism. Has anyone compared the source code? Many websites have similar design features. For example loads of websites have a three column layout.

Presumably Barack Obama did not design his own campaign website.

If David Cameron wins the general election, his position on Europe will be only one of several factors leading to victory. Therefore I think it would give him a rather weak mandate to fundamental re-negotiation of our relationship with the EU. It is far better to get a specific referendum mandate. I think there should be a referendum with a few options, including total withdrawal, repatriation of power, and closer integration. Commenting on Barack Obama, Tim Montgomerie has argued that he has "misread his mandate". Surely a referendum would give David Cameron a stronger mandate in Europe, and not leave him open to the charge of misreading his mandate.

I would agree that this sort of thing has public value. I would accept that there is a good argument to have BBC Parliament as public service broadcasting. I think the rest of the BBC should be privatised. It is important for people to be able to see what goes on in Parliament. However, we don't actually need to have the BBC to have audio and video coverage on Parliament online. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Home.aspx

Attacks like those on James Parkes in Liverpool are truly evil and should not be tolerated in a civilised society. It really makes me sick to think of someone being beaten up by a gang of about 13 people and left with multiple skull fractures. Similarly, the attack on Matthew Shepherd in the USA is awful. However, I don't like the idea of "hate crime". Would the attacks on Matthew Shepherd or James Parkes been any less wicked, if they had nothing to do with sexuality, perhaps if the attackers had just picked a victim at random. Beating someone to death as was done to Matthew Shepherd deserves severe punishment. But Matthew Shepherd's attackers were jailed, and potentially could have had the death penalty, without the need for legislation against hate crime. It is obvious that if you beat someone to death that you hate that person. Does it make the crime any more or less evil if the reason for the hatred is sexuality? In this video, Richard Barnes says that Jan Moir (I presume) is guilty of a hate crime. Is this Conservative policy - that writing offensive things should be criminalised? What then of the 20% of people in this country who disapprove of homosexual practice? Are there views to be criminalised as well?

Doug Hoffman is more conservative than Dede Scozzafava on both fiscal and social issues, so I am pleased that people went for him over the Republican party candidate. If he wins, it will be a victory for putting principle ahead of party loyalty. Another important election next week is over same-sex marriage in the State of Maine. Maine is one of six states that allow same-sex marriage, while 30 have banned it. http://bit.ly/2WG2pE The USA is well ahead of Britain in terms of democracy. Can you imagine voters here being given the chance to overturn a controversial decision by Parliament at a referendum, after gathering enough signatures to secure a referendum?

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate, has suspended her campaign. http://bit.ly/4uNXis Surely this vindicates the decision of many Republicans to back someone they agreed with, rather that the person who got their party's nomination.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a rude man - swearing in a letter to the Californian legislature - http://bit.ly/3L0L6U (link to San Francisco Chronicle)

I completely agree with the last paragraph. One of the positive things about US politics is that people like Tim Pawlenty (currently a governor) have in individual mandate, so don't have to simply follow the party line. People can put principle over the party. If any Conservative MP, or party member, backed a candidate from an opposing party they would likely get thrown out the party. Parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Principles matter more than party politics.

I didn't say she should be deselected. That is for the local association and the local electorate to decide based on all evidence available. What I said is that it is not irrelevant. When Gordon Brown breaks a promise in a manifesto, then people can rightly distrust future promises in future manifestos. Likewise, if someone breaks a promise made to their loved ones, it is not entirely irrational for the electorate to be cautious about trusting them. Of course, people may decide that, on balance, taking the MP/candidate's record into account, that they do trust what the MP/candidate says. It is right to consider this, it is not the only consideration.

Republicans lead the polls in the race for the governor of New Jersey and Virginia. Both states voted for Obama over McCain. The Republicans are not finished yet. America is a more conservative country than the UK, so we cannot make direct comparisons between the USA now and the UK in 1997. Even California is more socially conservative than the UK, think Proposition 8. So it is not a surprise that Republicans don't do well if they abandon social conservatism. Recent polls have shown that Conservatives are the biggest single group in America. Also, two opinion polls have shown that America has become more pro-life since Barack Obama was elected. Other polls have shown Barack Obama has dropped support since his election. In short - there are several encouraging signs for the Republicans. The Republicans need to have distinctive policies if they are to win. I hope, and expect, that Doug Hoffman will win NY-23.

Of course men should be judged by the same standards as women on matters like this. However, I did not say she has to go, I said it is right that it is taken into consideration. Specifically, I said "I don't believe that someone who has had an affair could never be a good MP".

I didn't say she should be deselected. I was arguing against seeing this as irrelevant. There are many things we can use to judge whether someone is suitable to hold office. One of these is their character. Other things include their policies, their record, their skills and expertise, etc. We have to make a judgement based on all the evidence available. If there were two identical candidates, except one had committed adultery and the other hadn't, they I would pick the one that hadn't. But in reality there are many factors to take into consideration when choosing an MP.

"It her husband can forgive her and stay married to her then that ought to be good enough for anyone really." I agree. No-one is perfect. As I said, I don't think these things are irrelevant, but it is not an absolute rule that moral failings disqualify from public office. How we respond when we fail is also important. Presumably she has accepted that what she did was wrong if her husband has stayed with her. That's a good sign.

I want MPs to be honest. Adultery is a sign of dishonesty. I want MPs to keep the promises they make. Having an affair either involves breaking your promises, or encouraging other people to break their promises. I don't believe that someone who has had an affair could never be a good MP. But someone's character is surely relevant when considering whether they are likely to be a good MP or not.

I mentioned yesturday the news about the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, and how many Republicans are backing a candidate running against the Republican party nominee. Today, a New York newspaper has endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman - http://bit.ly/2KmVgi