Best Of

Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html

Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.

There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.

Dare you to have a bash at banning infant circumcision. You'd need a century of campaigning.

How many people would have any skin in the game?

I'll get my coat.

I once had a job as a circumcisors assistant. The guy that held the scissors and mopped the circumcisors brow, basic stuff really.

I did it before I went into engineering. Interesting job. Basic pay was poor but he gave me half the tips.

In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace

I wonder if they even exist any more

On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery

There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.

Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.

They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.

They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.

They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.

They are likely to be less well represented.

They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.

I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.

These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.

And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.

Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61

Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***

But he's also completely wrong, unless of course the US helps Russia stuff the ballot boxes in Ukraine to oust Zelenskyy, which I guess isn't beyond the realms of possibility now, in fact it's verging on probable.

Why should another state force an election on a different sovereign state, out of a wartime victor scenario?

Musk has been very pi**ed off with Starmer, and encouraged the petition calling for another UK election. If Trump said he was going to enact tough sanctions against the UK unless we held elections to get rid of Starmer, would you approve?

Zelenskyy is the elected president of Ukraine, and Ukrainian law says there should be no elections during war - for obvious reasons.

From Guardian reporting:

Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:

One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.

PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.

I understand the problem of bias that the guidelines are intented to solve and sympathise with their objective but the chosen means looks like an excessively blunt instrument, and one that could introduce new biases. It's important that everyone has faith in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. They should think again.

Surely the easiest remedy is to ensure that all offenders have a pre sentence report? If it's true that the categories for whom it's currently recommended cover the majority anyway then the overhead wouldn't be that great.

This is the correct take on Trump

“Europeans make the mistake of regarding Trump as an overmighty would-be emperor. In fact, he is actuated by a nagging sense of weakness. He must either strike enough deals around the world to power and equip his country’s economy, or face an unacceptable level of dependence on China, the most powerful industrial and military foe the US has ever faced.”

https://x.com/nfergus/status/1897581485147783498?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Trump is a symptom of relative American DECLINE, not a new world-tyrant of a mighty surging power. That may not be much consolation as he trashes NATO, mind

That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.

There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.

It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.

It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.

The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.

That is compelling.

Is "compelling" a synonym of "bollocks"?

https://x.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1897617476394914209

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.

It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.

Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.

That would be an act of war.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-allies-secret-talks-volodymyr-zelenskyy-opposition-ukraine-elections-yulia-tymoshenko-petro-poroshenko/

All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.

As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)

Trump isn't interested in facts, he's interested in replacing Zelenskky with someone who will surrender to Russia.

From Guardian reporting:

Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:

One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.

PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.

Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.

How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?