Crossing the channel in a dinghy has an effective mortality rate of about 0.1%
Time to stop living in fear etc etc and let people have the freedom to etc etc
If you are trying to be funny, it’s not really very funny today though isn’t it.
Maybe I should stop commenting now I am tipsy before I say something very out of place. I was banned from a site a few weeks ago for calling someone a poisonous rock fish, but despite looking rather funny they are very poisonous.
No, satire isn't always meant to be funny. In this case it's meant to reflect the irony of people saying we can live with Covid deaths whilst saying we can't live with migrants dying in the sea. If I was trying to be funny I would accuse them of racism against white people, but I'm not so I won't.
Sorry. It’s just right now I want to see TV pictures of the gang members and gang bosses in a French or UK court. The BBC news just said the gangs make as much as two hundred and fifty million from each dingy and there’s been 25,000 making it over this year.
Get the gangs and their bosses! How difficult can that be?
250m whats? Don't be bloody ridiculous. These guys don't pay in advance, they don't have the dosh, the deal is structured so the migrants send money home to their families who pay off the debt to the people smugglers. So whatever it costs, it is repayable out of the amount of money a penniless immigrant can send home to Africa each month. Two hundred and fifty millionths of a million dollars sounds about right.
250,000 pound from a dingy boat sorry! I’m sure that’s what BBC reporter (Mark Easton?) said.
But media does often say how much people have paid for a ticket?
If you are economic migrant I appreciate won’t have much money. If you are Kurd or Syrian, more middle class refuge you might pay up front?
Both economic migrants and refugees - and the groups aren't separate, many are both - are paying huge sums. 5 figures often. This represents everything their family has, very often.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
You asked 'where this one third stat came from.'
You were provided with a source that indicated one third of DA cases were directed against men.
True, it's an estimate. That's true of all crime figures. Because not all crimes are detected (including murder) or reported.
It seems to me you got exactly what you requested, TBH.
Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.
She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.
Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand
Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates
From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.
These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.
RIP. This was avoidable.
I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.
This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.
There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.
So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all
You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.
It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things. It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some. It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.
When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.
My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.
As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise
I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct
Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda
We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action
Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.
That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
It is not passed into law neither will it be
It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.
I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU
My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
Thanks for that post, glad we've both deescalated this. Compromise and compassion is needed - the challenge is finding it when so many people have had their souls closed to humanity for political gain.
EDIT - I note that Patel states "this government’s New Plan for Immigration will overhaul our broken asylum system and address many of the long-standing pull factors encouraging migrants to make the perilous journey from France to the United Kingdom.” That is her bill which still has the clauses to make assisting drowning refugee children a criminal offence.
I have posted an explanation on the RNLI exemption as documented by the European Journal of International Law up thread to hopefully clarify the position
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
Crossing the channel in a dinghy has an effective mortality rate of about 0.1%
Time to stop living in fear etc etc and let people have the freedom to etc etc
If you are trying to be funny, it’s not really very funny today though isn’t it.
Maybe I should stop commenting now I am tipsy before I say something very out of place. I was banned from a site a few weeks ago for calling someone a poisonous rock fish, but despite looking rather funny they are very poisonous.
No, satire isn't always meant to be funny. In this case it's meant to reflect the irony of people saying we can live with Covid deaths whilst saying we can't live with migrants dying in the sea. If I was trying to be funny I would accuse them of racism against white people, but I'm not so I won't.
Sorry. It’s just right now I want to see TV pictures of the gang members and gang bosses in a French or UK court. The BBC news just said the gangs make as much as two hundred and fifty million from each dingy and there’s been 25,000 making it over this year.
Get the gangs and their bosses! How difficult can that be?
250m whats? Don't be bloody ridiculous. These guys don't pay in advance, they don't have the dosh, the deal is structured so the migrants send money home to their families who pay off the debt to the people smugglers. So whatever it costs, it is repayable out of the amount of money a penniless immigrant can send home to Africa each month. Two hundred and fifty millionths of a million dollars sounds about right.
250,000 pound from a dingy boat sorry! I’m sure that’s what BBC reporter (Mark Easton?) said.
But media does often say how much people have paid for a ticket?
If you are economic migrant I appreciate won’t have much money. If you are Kurd or Syrian, more middle class refuge you might pay up front?
Both economic migrants and refugees - and the groups aren't separate, many are both - are paying huge sums. 5 figures often. This represents everything their family has, very often.
This is one of the reasons they are so desperate.
IshmaelZ May still have a point though. I’m sure I heard BBC report say gangs make up to £250K each inflatable boat, that still sounds a lot of money on average for everyone on there?
The old adage is wealth is power, and I probably know more through TV shows than real life, but they probably can afford to pay politicians, police and others to watch a wall whilst they smuggle 😟
The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.
These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.
RIP. This was avoidable.
I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.
This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.
There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.
So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all
You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.
It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things. It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some. It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.
When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.
My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.
As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise
I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct
Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda
We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action
Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.
That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
It is not passed into law neither will it be
It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.
I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU
My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
IIRC the result of the Aylan Kurdi case was that the EU paid the Turks a fat wad of cash to stop the migrants from coming, whilst the Greeks have been building up their defences, constructing more secure holding facilities and engaging in pushback tactics at sea ever since.
We can argue forever about what should be done with these migrants and where they ought to end up, but the bottom line is that nobody (save for a handful of charities and advocacy groups) wants them. Not here, not in France, not in Italy, not in Greece, nowhere. If anyone is waiting for compassion to trump politics in this whole sordid business then they're going to be doing so for a very long time.
Unfortunately the rich countries are very good at flaunting their wealth and screwing up poor countries with "you can't have this" and proxy wars as we have had in Syria et al. Its no surprise that people want to escape that. The long term fix has to be to transform prospects for people who stay in their own countries, but Gordon Brown begging world leaders to forgive third-world debt seems a long time ago.
Syria's a poor example here, aside from some air strikes against ISIL the UK has barely been involved in that one, much less so than Assad, ISIL, the Kurds, Turkey, the Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran & ... Russia.
We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.
As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.
So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.
So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.
Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.
And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.
The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.
There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.
She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.
Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand
Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates
From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
Funny, it's her opponent that's meant to be an Arden.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I once had to contemplate er... violent action. My only possible weapon was a hardback book I'd picked from the self at home, somewhat in a daze.
Then I noticed what it was. "On Thermonuclear War" by Herman Kahn.
We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.
As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.
So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.
So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.
Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.
And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.
The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.
There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.
As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.
So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.
So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.
Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.
And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.
The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.
There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?
Too many people make money from too many people.
Yep, follow the money.
The most logical explanation for the Government's chronic failure to do anything of use about the flow of boat people is that they want it to continue as it is (whilst maintaining the pretence that they do not.)
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
You may not accept it but then that is your right
It's an academic paper commenting about the law. It's not a government statement. It clearly says that the law is still unclear. It wouldn't use words like 'suggest' if the exemption was clear.
Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.
She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.
Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand
Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates
From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
Funny, it's her opponent that's meant to be an Arden.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
Meanwhile, in other news, the second edition of the acclaimed board game ‘Great Western Trail’ will be released any day now.
I guess they're not going ahead with 'Northern Powerhouse Train' now?
The already published ‘rails to the north’ extension to the original edition is believed still to work with the second, although the expansion board doesn’t quite fit.
Personally I have always been sceptical about whether it adds anything to the game.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
As we discussed at the time, its inclusion in the bill - "simply poor drafting" assured Charles - is a clear marker for those kinds of organisations and they have reacted accordingly.
An interpretation by a European Law journal does not provide sufficient cover for RNLI's insurers. Until case law provides actual clarification the grey area is sufficient to get done what the Home Secretary wants doing.
Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.
Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?
Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
I baulk against all injustice.
It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?
The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.
If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
The RNLI acts under the request of the Coastguard and both are specifically named in this paper
The rescue of lives at sea by the RNLI is nothing to do with their legal status, it is all to do with saving lives
We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.
As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.
So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.
So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.
Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.
And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.
The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.
There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?
Too many people make money from too many people.
Think of it as "Fuck Business".....
EDIT: But seriously - remember when a burger chain had the temerity to cooperate with the Home Office about illegal workers? I have jokingly suggested such a law in front of various people of the progressive persuasion. The anger reflected back suggests that they can easily conceive of the effect it would have.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
The RNLI acts under the request of the Coastguard and both are specifically named in this paper
The rescue of lives at sea by the RNLI is nothing to do with their legal status, it is all to do with saving lives
Their ability to operate has everything to do with their legal status.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Given where I've run and walked, I should have died hundreds of times ...
I've actually encountered very few GOMLs (*). One of which was in Scotland, in an area where there is very much right-to-roam. They followed me in a Land Rover off their land. I had been walking along a well-made track.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.
Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.
If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological physical sexual financial emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.
Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?
Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
I baulk against all injustice.
It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?
The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.
If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
I was quite specific in that I explained it was the BBC "edit" that I heard. I haven't seen the original PMQs TV broadcast but on the evidence of the radio clip just before the end of PM, Johnson's riposte to Starmer's question was fluent and succinct. Are you suggesting the edit didn't tell the whole story and I was hoodwinked by our state broadcaster? Surely not!
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.
If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
A Scottish friend uses the word 'walloper' for a dick(head).
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Also the owner of the building site testified the murder victim had not disturbed the property or interfered with it.
In court it was made clear there was no reason to suspect Aubery had involvement in any thefts.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.
Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.
There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.
She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.
Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand
Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates
From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
Looking as the NZ opinion poling, Jacinda is down about 10 points form the GE a year ago, but its not the main opposition that's been gaining National party's are stuck at around 26% instead ACT party are up form 8 to about 16% and their leader David Seymore is the second in the leader rankings.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological physical sexual financial emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
How would you know if we have no data and people don't talk about it?
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.
If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
I'm assuming that Pulpy has adopted some Glaswegian, ie
walloper A Scots word meaning a penis, usually large and floppy, often used as an insult
I have a huge walloper
I don't like him, he's a walloper
I express no opinion on whether it's deserved in this instance
Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.
Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?
Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
I baulk against all injustice.
It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?
The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.
If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
I was quite specific in that I explained it was the BBC "edit" that I heard. I haven't seen the original PMQs TV broadcast but on the evidence of the radio clip just before the end of PM, Johnson's riposte to Starmer's question was fluent and succinct. Are you saying the edit didn't tell the whole story and I was hoodwinked by our state broadcaster? Surely not!
it’s NDBC now isn’t it?
Looking at your original rather over the top post again Pete, does it really sound like you?
To borrow a quote from a reporter on Monday “is everything alright?” Or put another way, would you like the key to the drinks cabinet?
It wasn’t me who marked you off topic! But I think I know the injustice they saw in your post. Maybe they thought it said off colour?
It’s not personal, I’m not personally getting at you. And it’s not that I’m grumpy because my other half hasn’t come in from office yet, she’s gone for a drink with office friends. I might start dinner without her.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological physical sexual financial emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
How would you know if we have no data and people don't talk about it?
I don't know - that's why I used the phrase 'strongly suspect'.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
My now-ex-wife once threw a pint glass at me. On another occasion she hit me on the head with a metal pole (we were inside so she didn't have much room to swing it hard) while I changed the baby's nappy.
That time the police were called by our neighbours when she started screaming because I was restraining her after she'd started hitting herself with the metal pole (due to not being a reaction from hitting me with it).
The police suggested I take the baby and stay with my mother in London to let everyone calm down. That night, we spoke on the phone and she was furious with me for being more worried about things than about her. So she threatened to smash up my laptop unless I told her not to (thus proving her right).
I didn't, so she smashed up my laptop with a hammer. When this didn't get a rise out of me she threatened to hit herself with the hammer, but we managed to defuse that situation and I read Harry Potter to her on the phone while her mother drove 100 miles through the night to be with her.
I spent a long time refusing to think of anything that happened as abuse, because she was nearly one foot shorter than me and so I never felt in any personal physical danger.
She's, er, training to be a GP now.
I'm so glad that our daughter is an adult now and there's no need for me to have any contact with her (my daughter's mother) again.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.
If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
I'm assuming that Pulpy has adopted some Glaswegian, ie
walloper A Scots word meaning a penis, usually large and floppy, often used as an insult
I have a huge walloper
I don't like him, he's a walloper
I express no opinion on whether it's deserved in this instance
Personally would be very happy to be governed by a cabinet that included either Big_G or Roch - or both.
At least for starters!
Same is true for other PBers I could (but won't) mention.
As for myself, am a strict Marxist: I oppose ANY administration that would have me as a member!
Well, after first Bush, a brief respite, then Trump and now Biden, I imagine even Hyufd and his Holy Alliance style antics would be an improvement.
At the end of a Johnson administration I might well feel the same way...
You can dream whatever dreams you dream, and welcome to them. Mine are my own.
And do NOT share the PB disdain for Uncle Joe. Not by a long shot.
As for the Holy Alliance, it did have it's good points, sort of. For example, was key to development of Monroe Doctrine, which for all it's manifold flaws did keep (direct) European colonization of Americas at bay for over a century.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.
Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.
There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
No, I am saying serves them right, they are murderers. I have never once mentioned their colour. They took the life of an innocent man out jogging and their claims of local break ins were disputed by local law enforcement and the owner of the building site also testified in Ahmed’s favour.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.
Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.
There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
No, I am saying serves them right, they are murderers. I have never once mentioned their colour. They took the life of an innocent man out jogging and their claims of local break ins were disputed by local law enforcement and the owner of the building site also testified in Ahmed’s favour.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The owner of the site said nothing was taken, and the jogger wasn't carrying anything.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration) to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered” the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
Do you think that’s going to be the news at ten line “who to believe? Well the stats say UK takes zillions fewer migrants each year than say France, or 1$ or 2$.”
That news, if fact, would actually make the UK government look good in eyes of its voters 😃.
That sounds about right to me. The boat crossings have increased while the more conventional routes to asylum have diminished. France takes a lot more asylum seekers than we do.
The only thing I'd add is that France is also much tougher on not allowing illegal immigrants to live and work there; one incentive for some to come to the UK is that it's much easier to disappear off the official radar than it is in France.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.
Sure
If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The owner of the site said nothing was taken, and the jogger wasn't carrying anything.
It was a plain old fashioned lynching.
I'm with you. It sounded to me reminiscent of the old KKK days, when a black man in the wrong place could be executed for nothing more than that.
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.
Sure
If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
What is it that drives you to victim blame the jogger, when three men have just been convicted of murder?
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration) to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered” the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"
Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
Thanks. I can't see anything in those notes which excludes the RNLI or Coasstguard from potential prosecution.
"it remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402) ...but the RNLI does not 'aim to assist asylum seekers'.
It would seem crazy for the authorities to try to proscute the an RNLI crew member, and would no doubt cause national uproar, but why doesn't the Home Office just amend the bill to make it clear?
The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.
Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.
The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.
Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
The Guardian is correct.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.
Sure
If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
What is it that drives you to victim blame the jogger, when three men have just been convicted of murder?
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
My now-ex-wife once threw a pint glass at me. On another occasion she hit me on the head with a metal pole (we were inside so she didn't have much room to swing it hard) while I changed the baby's nappy.
That time the police were called by our neighbours when she started screaming because I was restraining her after she'd started hitting herself with the metal pole (due to not being a reaction from hitting me with it).
The police suggested I take the baby and stay with my mother in London to let everyone calm down. That night, we spoke on the phone and she was furious with me for being more worried about things than about her. So she threatened to smash up my laptop unless I told her not to (thus proving her right).
I didn't, so she smashed up my laptop with a hammer. When this didn't get a rise out of me she threatened to hit herself with the hammer, but we managed to defuse that situation and I read Harry Potter to her on the phone while her mother drove 100 miles through the night to be with her.
I spent a long time refusing to think of anything that happened as abuse, because she was nearly one foot shorter than me and so I never felt in any personal physical danger.
She's, er, training to be a GP now.
I'm so glad that our daughter is an adult now and there's no need for me to have any contact with her (my daughter's mother) again.
Sounds awful! On your final paragraph that is exactly my own position. It has taken several attempts for me to successfully get the message across that we are not going to speak again but I think its finally sunk in.
More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological physical sexual financial emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
In no way do I wish to reduce the hideous effects of abuse on women. There is too much of it. What I am trying to highlight is that there are many men whose lives are being affected, or ruined, by abuse - and on occasion they can be treated as perpetrators rather than victims. They are all to often ignored.
And why does 'atypical' matter, if thousands of people suffer from it each year? Should their suffering be ignored because it is atypical? Because it ruins an overly simplistic message of 'victim' and 'perpetrator'?
In addition: far too few people - of either gender - talk about their experiences of abuse of all types. This needs fixing.
There's a kind of dislocation in those types who simultaneously claim their country is the bestest in the world while seeing people who want to come there as somehow morally deficient; prick tease patriotism I call it. That other countries' milkshakes appear to bring a load more boys to their yards also doesn't seem to compute.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
But that is not the proposed law. The law is left up in the air. Uncertain. To screw with the RNLI and its insurers. I can't understand why you fail to see that.
Comments
This is one of the reasons they are so desperate.
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
You were provided with a source that indicated one third of DA cases were directed against men.
True, it's an estimate. That's true of all crime figures. Because not all crimes are detected (including murder) or reported.
It seems to me you got exactly what you requested, TBH.
Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456496/live-simon-bridges-demoted-by-national-party-leader-judith-collins-over-allegation-of-misconduct-all-the-latest-updates
From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
The old adage is wealth is power, and I probably know more through TV shows than real life, but they probably can afford to pay politicians, police and others to watch a wall whilst they smuggle 😟
There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
You may not accept it but then that is your right
Then I noticed what it was. "On Thermonuclear War" by Herman Kahn.
Too many people make money from too many people.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
At least for starters!
Same is true for other PBers I could (but won't) mention.
As for myself, am a strict Marxist: I oppose ANY administration that would have me as a member!
The most logical explanation for the Government's chronic failure to do anything of use about the flow of boat people is that they want it to continue as it is (whilst maintaining the pretence that they do not.)
ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/
I hope this helps
At the end of a Johnson administration I might well feel the same way...
Personally I have always been sceptical about whether it adds anything to the game.
An interpretation by a European Law journal does not provide sufficient cover for RNLI's insurers. Until case law provides actual clarification the grey area is sufficient to get done what the Home Secretary wants doing.
The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.
If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?
I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
The rescue of lives at sea by the RNLI is nothing to do with their legal status, it is all to do with saving lives
EDIT: But seriously - remember when a burger chain had the temerity to cooperate with the Home Office about illegal workers? I have jokingly suggested such a law in front of various people of the progressive persuasion. The anger reflected back suggests that they can easily conceive of the effect it would have.
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
I've actually encountered very few GOMLs (*). One of which was in Scotland, in an area where there is very much right-to-roam. They followed me in a Land Rover off their land. I had been walking along a well-made track.
Ooh, have I just admitted to being a criminal ?
(*) Get Orf my Lands.
Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:
psychological
physical
sexual
financial
emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
She frequently calls me a walloper.
In court it was made clear there was no reason to suspect Aubery had involvement in any thefts.
There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
If National have a undignified fight over the leadership, could this prompt 5% to switch to ACT and for the to be second in the polls?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
walloper
A Scots word meaning a penis, usually large and floppy, often used as an insult
I have a huge walloper
I don't like him, he's a walloper
I express no opinion on whether it's deserved in this instance
Looking at your original rather over the top post again Pete, does it really sound like you?
To borrow a quote from a reporter on Monday “is everything alright?” Or put another way, would you like the key to the drinks cabinet?
It wasn’t me who marked you off topic! But I think I know the injustice they saw in your post. Maybe they thought it said off colour?
It’s not personal, I’m not personally getting at you. And it’s not that I’m grumpy because my other half hasn’t come in from office yet, she’s gone for a drink with office friends. I might start dinner without her.
That time the police were called by our neighbours when she started screaming because I was restraining her after she'd started hitting herself with the metal pole (due to not being a reaction from hitting me with it).
The police suggested I take the baby and stay with my mother in London to let everyone calm down. That night, we spoke on the phone and she was furious with me for being more worried about things than about her. So she threatened to smash up my laptop unless I told her not to (thus proving her right).
I didn't, so she smashed up my laptop with a hammer. When this didn't get a rise out of me she threatened to hit herself with the hammer, but we managed to defuse that situation and I read Harry Potter to her on the phone while her mother drove 100 miles through the night to be with her.
I spent a long time refusing to think of anything that happened as abuse, because she was nearly one foot shorter than me and so I never felt in any personal physical danger.
She's, er, training to be a GP now.
I'm so glad that our daughter is an adult now and there's no need for me to have any contact with her (my daughter's mother) again.
UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.
UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.
French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.
Which is it?
UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.
French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.
France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.
France processed 120k applications.
The two countries have similar sized populations.
France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
Not saying which half, mind.
And do NOT share the PB disdain for Uncle Joe. Not by a long shot.
As for the Holy Alliance, it did have it's good points, sort of. For example, was key to development of Monroe Doctrine, which for all it's manifold flaws did keep (direct) European colonization of Americas at bay for over a century.
It was a plain old fashioned lynching.
397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
“immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
That news, if fact, would actually make the UK government look good in eyes of its voters 😃.
Conservative poll surge incoming!
The only thing I'd add is that France is also much tougher on not allowing illegal immigrants to live and work there; one incentive for some to come to the UK is that it's much easier to disappear off the official radar than it is in France.
If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
NEW THREAD
Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
"it remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402) ...but the RNLI does not 'aim to assist asylum seekers'.
It would seem crazy for the authorities to try to proscute the an RNLI crew member, and would no doubt cause national uproar, but why doesn't the Home Office just amend the bill to make it clear?
And why does 'atypical' matter, if thousands of people suffer from it each year? Should their suffering be ignored because it is atypical? Because it ruins an overly simplistic message of 'victim' and 'perpetrator'?
In addition: far too few people - of either gender - talk about their experiences of abuse of all types. This needs fixing.