Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Considering Labour were runners-up in 2019, have been runners-up in all but 1 election there and have frequently gained at least 30% of the vote . . . if Labour were credibly looking to win the next election shouldn't they be the ones pushing for a by-election gain?
In light of the horror story being discussed earlier, a further question is raised.
One of the evil monsters involved has her own children apparently. Is it appropriate that they be left in her custody? Even if it doesn't seem like they are in danger of receiving the same treatment, we should surely be concerned about them developing into sociopaths themselves.
It seems like for the sake of potential future victims, they should be removed to a more positive environment.
I assume the stepmom’s kids (5 I think?) will be given custody to their various fathers.
The whole situation of the main characters in Arthur’s life is unbelievably tragic.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
The step-mother (who was convicted of murder) won't be eligible to even apply for parole for 29 years. The father (manslaughter) would be eligible to apply after two-thirds of his sentence (14 years).
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Not the case here for the step-mother. Her sentence is LIFE as is mandatory for murder. The minimum term is 29 years - not eligible to even apply for parole until 2050 (possibly 2049 - not sure how long they've been held on remand).
It is for the father - he's eligible to apply after 14 years, two-thirds of his 21 year manslaughter sentence.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
But is this right ?
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
This happens in every poll taken in a week where Starmer's team have made a great play of cooking up a public conflict with the left. This is partly why I have concerns that although they've made some improvements and strides forwards towards greater professionalism, they may still not have fully understood the post-New Labour electoral reality, and that it's not 1997 any more.
Before his first public conflicts with the left, Starmer managed to hit peaks of around 39-40%, carrying both the left and centre-left with him. He hasn't hit these numbers as yet again since.
Yes, I want to see an end to performative left bashing. It's sterile and limiting. Let's see some beautiful game.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
But is this right ?
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
And the candidates matter a lot in a by-election.
No it isn't right. I wasn't advocating it. I think it's a form of political corruption - but I know I come over as naive and pompous for saying so.
Indeed. One of my favourites. Fondly remember him delivering a soliloquy hanging upside down on a rope as Tamberline.
Yes, he had some extraordinary performances. I was lucky enough to see the early 80s Richard III.
His recent(ish) Falstaff was a real disappointment. Kids couldn't understand why I'd been excited to see the production.
That reminds me of an episode of Frasier where he and Niles meet an actor played by Derek Jacobi who was their idol when young and finance a one man show for him and then find he’s dreadful and nobody gets what they saw in him…!
Anthony Sher however was brilliant, was lucky enough to see him in both “The Trial” and “The resistible rise of Arturo Ui” and after the performance of the latter he kindly had a private talk and Q&A with our school party for about half an hour after the performance. He was very pleasant, funny and interesting.
Huge swing from Conservatives to Apathy in Bexley.
Johnson and Starmer will both be content with the result in the short term. ("Conservatives hold safest seat in England" is not a shock for the latter). Starmer's medium term challenge, and Johnson's longer term concern if it happens, is getting supporters of Apathy to switch to Labour.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
And the public expectation is what happens.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
And the public expectation is what happens.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
There shouldn't be a possibility of parole. Life should mean life and they should live their lives knowing they are never going to be released ... unless they can prove a wrongful conviction in the past, that is the only reason they should be kept alive.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
Panic ye not Kinabalu.
Pre- Owen Paterson you wouldn't have credited Labour with 25% in OB and S. Owen Paterson and Peppa Pig have been bonuses I was not expecting. I am still anticipating price inflation and astronomical energy price inflation next year, although prior to that I am foreseeing a booster boost for Johnson too. But then how many encores can we expect from the vaccination one trick pony?
My nerves have been steadied that Johnson is less likely to be jettisoned in favour of someone "normal" before the next GE.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
It is rare for a minimum term to be reduced, though it can happen. Eg
Stand aside my Horse friend - I’ll sort Big Knows out today.
Isn’t it about time you explained Big John?
PM Starmer v PM Big John, what exactly are the big policy differences to explain all your arm whirling belligerence? Nuclear weapons. Nationalisation? Pro Palestine? The need for huge and fiscally unbalanced state spending pledges is the best way to win elections?
Or is it you’ve just got a bad case of the trots, call in the checka just because Molotov cocktails aren’t mixed to your liking?
Do speak up on your disappointments with PM Starmers policy’s, we are all waiting to hear and learn from you.
PS unlike Philip Thompson who explained in policy terms to us why he called ReformUK loonies, I am predicting silence from you as typical when People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front go down into the granola of why they are at war.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
But is this right ?
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
And the candidates matter a lot in a by-election.
No it isn't right. I wasn't advocating it. I think it's a form of political corruption - but I know I come over as naive and pompous for saying so.
Oh I agree entirely.
My vote is important to me.
I want to vote for someone who stands for something that is close to my eccentric collection of beliefs.
If there is no one, I'd rather not vote (as happened in GE 2019).
Born in Derby and educated at a private school in Nottingham before a long but relatively unglamorous career in the Foreign Office, Lord Frost looks more like the middle-class provincials who predominate on the Tory benches than like his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause. He was condescended to by eu negotiators, who thought his threats to walk out theatrical and childish. The old guard of the diplomatic service are crueller: they think him a third-rater. No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
Looking at North Shropshire while a safe Tory seat the swing Labour would have required is little more than the swing the Tories did get to gain Crewe and Nantwich.
I can't see any reason why the Labour Party couldn't be bothered to try and win this seat, considering they were runners up and have a history of getting at least 30% of the vote there.
If Labour were serious about winning the next election, they'd have tried to win North Shropshire. Even if the Lib Dems gain it, Labour's weakness means I expect t he Tories will regain it as part of their majority at the next election.
BJO is right, Labour aren't a credible Opposition yet under Starmer. They aren't putting in the hard work that Cameron did.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
And the public expectation is what happens.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
There shouldn't be a possibility of parole. Life should mean life and they should live their lives knowing they are never going to be released ... unless they can prove a wrongful conviction in the past, that is the only reason they should be kept alive.
21 and 29 years does not seem long enough to me. I doubt I am alone across the voting public.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
But is this right ?
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
And the candidates matter a lot in a by-election.
No it isn't right. I wasn't advocating it. I think it's a form of political corruption - but I know I come over as naive and pompous for saying so.
Oh I agree entirely.
My vote is important to me.
I want to vote for someone who stands for something that is close to my eccentric collection of beliefs.
If there is no one, I'd rather not vote (as happened in GE 2019).
Neither Johnson nor Corbyn were eccentric enough for you?
I calculated my VO2max on Zwift yesterday to see if I had symptomless Covid and didn't know it. With 300W power for 6 minutes and weighing 69kg I got 54ml/(kg.min). That's the best I've done in three years so I don't have Covid yet. Remco Evenpoel can do 80+.
It'll almost certainly be the final time my VO2Max is equal to (or greater than) my age.
Rage, rage against dying of the light.
That’s what PB is largely for.
It was a full gas 10/10 effort to sustain that power. Fucking spewed everywhere at the end. Mrs DA not amused.
Hope you’re not as big a princess as Remco. He was moaning at Strade Bianche that all those wee stones were bad for his complexion, or some such nonsense.
Wahey, BJOs popped up for a gloat and a dig. Nice. No doubt to claim that Starmer has squandered the golden inheritance bequeathed to him by Corbyn.
It literally is impossible to mount any positive argument to defend SKS's shit performance without using "yeah but Corbyn"
4 years ago Lab were 8 pts ahead under yeah but Corbyn as opposed to 3 pts behind
Is all we are going to get for the next 3 years excuses involving yeah but Corbyn?
Why not? It will offer contrast from your objective and varied critique.
Because when Jezza was leader there were plenty of positive policies to get behind
Under the useless nonentity.
Nothing Nada sweet FA
Hence the yeah but Corbyn defence
That worked, or nearly, in 2017, but conversely, in 2019, Corbyn did certainly put a large number of people off. At the moment, Starmer is only not repelling some voters, doing a pretty creditable job of performing reasonably and competently, and having intermittently self-defeating and theatrical conflicts with the left. He needs to do a lot more, and show a lot more.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
Looks like I got Old Bexley and Sidcup spot on so let me try for North Shropshire.
Con 48% Libs 42% Lab 2% Green 3% Others 5%
Turnout 43%
- “ publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland”
Huh? Which seven?
Edinburgh South HOLD is the obvious list candidate, but thereafter?
East Lothian Coast Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
… but then it gets harder…
Coatbridge and Bellshill? Glasgow Central? Midlothian?
… then it gets super hard…
Airdrie and Shotts?? Rutherglen??
Yes, all of those. In a way, it doesn’t matter if they win them or not. The message is:
1. SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting 2. Unionists should vote Labour in some seats 3. Labour knows Scotland is decisive 4. Labour is not soft on the SNP.
To win a progressive majority that can form a government; Keir needs several strategies, as a general swing won’t do it.
This is part of a Scottish strategy.
So, you think that Labour strategy ought to include the message that “SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting”? Pray tell, in which seats are the SLab candidates in 2nd place behind the sitting SCon MPs?
Yes. Points 2-4 are fine, but that first one is pure nonsense.
Realistically I think Labour can win back a few seats in Scotland at the next GE like East lothian and Mid Lothian more by squeezing the Tory vote. Airdrie and Shotts is unlikely but not impossible as Labour increased their vote share in the May by election.
Labour does have major problems in Scotland with younger voters who Sturgeon is still extremely popular with.
That said I think some middle of the road voters still see Sarwar/Scottish Labour as a bland/dull/safe option they can vote tactically for even if the contrived media narrative that Sarwar is a major success is nonsense.
Voting Labour tactically makes sense in quite a few places if you're talking about anti-SNP tactics. Voting Labour tactically to keep Boris out makes sense basically nowhere in Scotland. Take my seat, Banff and Buchan. I voted "straight" last time, that is I chose the party I felt best able to represent my views at that moment, so it was Lib Dem. Now I've become hardened against this government and I want to vote anti-Boris. Who do I vote for? Obviously, SNP. That's one seat. What of the other 58? I haven't checked them, but my guess is there's a max of two where voting Labour to keep the Tories out makes sense. Perhaps none at all.
Labour does have a bit of a dearth of talent in Scotland, but honestly, I feel that way about all parties everywhere. Which party, Scotland or not, has only brilliant people in their top team? I can't think of one. In that light, Labour's northern travails seem much less bleak.
I doubt this is true anywhere
Edinburgh south has Lab + SNP shares of 72.9%; 77.4%;73.1% in the previous 3 GEs. The Tory share is 16.4%; 19.7%; 17.5%.
However you split the Lab & SNP vote it is > Tory share. So voting either Labour or SNP works there to keep the Tories out.
There are however, seats where you definitely need to vote SNP to keep the Tories out - Aberdeen South & Kincardine for instance &
2019 general election: Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale[7][8] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Mundell 22,611 46.0 −3.4 SNP Amanda Burgauer 18,830 38.3 +8.2 Labour Nick Chisholm 4,172 8.5 −8.0
SNP -> Labour movement would help the Tories here.
There are 0 seats where if you are currently voting SNP, switching to Labour hurts the Tories.
The genius of the Tory strategy in Scotland recently is to use "the union" as a means to gain Labour tactical votes - it's been very smart.
- “SNP -> Labour movement would help the Tories”
This is the heart of the matter. A vote for SLab helps the Tories. End of.
Wahey, BJOs popped up for a gloat and a dig. Nice. No doubt to claim that Starmer has squandered the golden inheritance bequeathed to him by Corbyn.
It literally is impossible to mount any positive argument to defend SKS's shit performance without using "yeah but Corbyn"
4 years ago Lab were 8 pts ahead under yeah but Corbyn as opposed to 3 pts behind
Is all we are going to get for the next 3 years excuses involving yeah but Corbyn?
Why not? It will offer contrast from your objective and varied critique.
Because when Jezza was leader there were plenty of positive policies to get behind
Under the useless nonentity.
Nothing Nada sweet FA
Hence the yeah but Corbyn defence
Alas your views on Corbyn's policies were not shared by the electorate. He super-served his own supporters at the expense of everyone else and lost badly as a result. He left Labour in an electoral abyss that anyone would struggle to climb out of. As you said last night, the leader is responsible. In that case, Corbyn.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
Except he hasn't.
They said his deal was crap, and he agrees with them, now...
No May's negotiations were crap and gave away everything, and the Remainer dominated Parliament wouldn't let us walk away without a deal.
The Protocol got us out of a bad situation as well as possible and in Article 16 allowed him to create the solution for the future. Like Kirk rewriting the programming, that seemingly innocuous Article inserted into the Protocol allowed Britain to find a winning solution to the previously unwinnable Kobayashi Maru that Barnier, May, Robbins and Grieves had conspired to create.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
I think the sentences in Arthur’s case are appropriate.
Just my 2p.
I’m generally pretty critical of the often short sentences for serious crimes that get doled out, but in this case I think the judge has got it about right.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Wahey, BJOs popped up for a gloat and a dig. Nice. No doubt to claim that Starmer has squandered the golden inheritance bequeathed to him by Corbyn.
It literally is impossible to mount any positive argument to defend SKS's shit performance without using "yeah but Corbyn"
4 years ago Lab were 8 pts ahead under yeah but Corbyn as opposed to 3 pts behind
Is all we are going to get for the next 3 years excuses involving yeah but Corbyn?
Why not? It will offer contrast from your objective and varied critique.
Because when Jezza was leader there were plenty of positive policies to get behind
Under the useless nonentity.
Nothing Nada sweet FA
Hence the yeah but Corbyn defence
That worked, or nearly, in 2017, but conversely, in 2019, Corbyn did certainly put a large number of people off. At the moment, Starmer is only not repelling some voters, doing a pretty creditable job of performing reasonably and competently, and having intermittently self-defeating and theatrical conflicts with the left. He needs to do a lot more, and show a lot more.
The irony of 2017 is that the manifesto resembled the 1997 programme more than anything Corbyn came up with later. Sometimes it's better not to overthink it. 2019 was definitely a case of that and was unpenetratable as a result, apart from the free broadband gimmick that tanked.
Either way the lions share of the blame for the 2019 failure lies not with Corbyn, but with Jo Swinson who, for some bizarre reason, gave Boris an election on his terms and timing.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Considering Labour were runners-up in 2019, have been runners-up in all but 1 election there and have frequently gained at least 30% of the vote . . . if Labour were credibly looking to win the next election shouldn't they be the ones pushing for a by-election gain?
No. Far from it.
The trouble with you Tory dinosaurs is that you seem to think that, if a person has voted Conservative on one occasion, he is therefore committed to voting Conservative for the rest of his life.
Not so.
There is in this country a very large pool of people who could go Conservative or could go Lib Dem. There is another large pool that could go Labour or could go Lib Dem. It seems to me that, in certain places, both of these pools are trending towards the Lib Dems at the same time.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
And there is yet another factor. Local political parties also change depending on the profile of the people who make them up at any one time. It seems to me that North Shropshire has had a convergence of good hard-working Lib Dem activists, which is why they did well in the last round of local elections, and established themselves as the clear challengers to the Tory hegemony and complacency.
Born in Derby and educated at a private school in Nottingham before a long but relatively unglamorous career in the Foreign Office, Lord Frost looks more like the middle-class provincials who predominate on the Tory benches than like his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause. He was condescended to by eu negotiators, who thought his threats to walk out theatrical and childish. The old guard of the diplomatic service are crueller: they think him a third-rater. No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Considering Labour were runners-up in 2019, have been runners-up in all but 1 election there and have frequently gained at least 30% of the vote . . . if Labour were credibly looking to win the next election shouldn't they be the ones pushing for a by-election gain?
No. Far from it.
The trouble with you Tory dinosaurs is that you seem to think that, if a person has voted Conservative on one occasion, he is therefore committed to voting Conservative for the rest of his life.
Not so.
There is in this country a very large pool of people who could go Conservative or could go Lib Dem. There is another large pool that could go Labour or could go Lib Dem. It seems to me that, in certain places, both of these pools are trending towards the Lib Dems at the same time.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
And there is yet another factor. Local political parties also change depending on the profile of the people who make them up at any one time. It seems to me that North Shropshire has had a convergence of good hard-working Lib Dem activists, which is why they did well in the last round of local elections, and established themselves as the clear challengers to the Tory hegemony and complacency.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
The by-election is yet more evidence of tactical voting between Labour and the Lib Dems, this will be hugely important if repeated at a GE
PMSL the swing to the Opposition was less than average in a by-election.
Despite the Lib Dems losing share, Labour's share rise was very poor for a by-election.
If a GE is repeated based on this I'd expect an increased Tory majority.
I agree that the LAB vote move was very small for a by-election but this seat was never seriously in contention and this was plain for all to see.
N Shropshire should be the same. This is a strong Leave seat where the LDs start in third and where the %age of grads is just about average. So none of the factors that would normally be helpful.
What gives the LDs an edge is having a powerful message in relation to the ex-MP. Whether an intense campaign will be enough I don't know. The message I've been seeing from campaign workers is that there is enough for them to believe they are in with a fighting chance. LD campaigns are able to reach many Tory voters in a way that Labour has never been able to do.
I think that's right: if it hadn't been for the nature of Paterson's offences (and the foolish way he totally avoided giving even a half-hearted apology) then the LDs wouldn't stand a chance. As it is, they're going to be running on a "let 'em know that they can't get away with this stuff with a bloody nose", and it might work.
As I said on the previous thread, I wouldn't be on the LDs at these odds - I think they're chances are more around the 18-20% level, not the 33-40% - but it is far from impossible that they win the by-election. 6-1 shots do, after all, come in one-in-six times.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
And the public expectation is what happens.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
There shouldn't be a possibility of parole. Life should mean life and they should live their lives knowing they are never going to be released ... unless they can prove a wrongful conviction in the past, that is the only reason they should be kept alive.
I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who'd want to see more whole life sentences (like Couzens was given).
But there is a real question as to where you draw the line on that. Do you mean all murders (all of which have a life sentence with some minimum attached now)?
A lot of murderers are not like Couzens or Tustin. Murders are often one off incidents that are very much out of character - a row that got totally out of hand following consumption of drugs or alcohol, or a "one-punch murder" case where the intention to cause serious harm is clear but not to kill (it's still murder if you didn't anticipate their head would strike the kerb when they went down). And what of the kid with an IQ of 80 who fell in with a bad crowd and was highly suggestible?
Indeed, quite a lot of those who work in prisons say many murderers are nicer, more relatable people than (say) career burglars. It quite often is a case of one terrible night, one set of circumstances, and a dreadful rush of blood to the head.
Also worth noting the issue of discipline in prison. It's generally much harder with whole life sentences as what are you saving up good behaviour brownie points for if not the parole board? There are some bargaining chips authorities have in terms of prison privileges, but "keep your head down and serve your time, and one day you'll be out of here" isn't a bad one. That's not to say there should never be whole life terms, or even that there shouldn't be a few more. But it's not a simple question, I think.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Considering Labour were runners-up in 2019, have been runners-up in all but 1 election there and have frequently gained at least 30% of the vote . . . if Labour were credibly looking to win the next election shouldn't they be the ones pushing for a by-election gain?
No. Far from it.
The trouble with you Tory dinosaurs is that you seem to think that, if a person has voted Conservative on one occasion, he is therefore committed to voting Conservative for the rest of his life.
Not so.
There is in this country a very large pool of people who could go Conservative or could go Lib Dem. There is another large pool that could go Labour or could go Lib Dem. It seems to me that, in certain places, both of these pools are trending towards the Lib Dems at the same time.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
And there is yet another factor. Local political parties also change depending on the profile of the people who make them up at any one time. It seems to me that North Shropshire has had a convergence of good hard-working Lib Dem activists, which is why they did well in the last round of local elections, and established themselves as the clear challengers to the Tory hegemony and complacency.
I never said that people would be committed to voting Conservative forever, far from it.
I have said I expect the Lib Dems to gain the seat, but I think Labour should have tried to gain it themselves.
Virtually any seat can be lost by a government in a by-election since the loss of office isn't at risk, the by-election provides an opportunity to provide a free protest vote against the government without risking the Opposition becoming the government.
Yes it would have taken a large swing for Labour to win this, but it'd take a large swing for them to win the next election too.
The swing required for Labour to gain this seat isn't much larger than the swing the Tories from Opposition did achieve in Crewe and Nantwich. The swing required is less than the swing that Labour got to gain South East Staffordshire from the Tories in 1996.
If Labour were ready for office like the Tories 2010 or Labour 1997 then they should be in contention in a by-election like North Shropshire.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
Conservative MPs have warned that it may be "too late" to shore up support in North Shropshire, with just two weeks before the next by-election.
Boris Johnson has held on to his party’s seat in Old Bexley and Sidcup, but the Conservative majority was slashed from almost 19,000 to just 4,478. Louie French, the Tory candidate, won the election triggered by the death of James Brokenshire with a 51.4 per cent share of the vote, compared with Labour’s 30.8 per cent.
Backbenchers praised Justin Tomlinson, the deputy party chairman, for running a "slick" and "very solid campaign", which one said was "the best I've seen in terms of competency".
His team will now switch their focus to North Shropshire, with a vote on Dec 16 triggered by the resignation of Owen Paterson amid the row over sleaze allegations.
One said today's result was "a relief", but added: "North Shropshire will be different because there is a more organised opposition in place, and other parties are taking it more seriously."
"Vibes coming back are not good," said one. "JT's team switch to Shropshire on Monday but I suspect it'll be too late.. he can't be everywhere and was determined to get [Old Bexley] over the line."
Absolutely clunking expectation management, but presumably the reason they are saying they are worried is they are actually worried
Interesting (by which I mean either stupid or deliberately misleading) that the DT majors on the absolute change in majority between elections with very different turnouts. Has there ever been a government by election hold without a 'slashed' majority in absolute terms?
I can only think of the Glenrothes by election in 2008 where Labour slightly increased both their absolute vote and share (although their majority was cut by the SNP) but this is probably isn't what you're looking for.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
There was a screamingly funny account of what happens when no-limits authoritarians encounter those with... er.... disordered lives, that I read a while back.
Screamingly funny as in either you like concentration camp jokes, or you like screaming.
You see, in 1930s Germany, such people existed. Drunken, violent, sexual abuse etc etc.
So when the Nazi's came to power, it was time to smarten these people up....
After a while (and a fair bit of effort), the Nazis started housing such people in indestructible concrete housing (because of the fires) and put barbed wire round them....
This still wasn't enough.
Then came the outbreak of war - the incorrigible incorrigibles were sent to concentration camps. The less incorrigible men were drafted into the army. Where they nearly all ended up in punishment battalions - since they weren't good at the discipline vs consequences thing.
As the final cherry on the cake, some found a home in the Dirlewanger Brigade....
Good stuff. I'd advise a very early night tonight and saturday.
Good luck. I had mine yesterday evening. A slightly sore arm but (fingers crossed) no other reaction so far. I know anecdotally it can be 24 hours later so I'll be on my guard this evening.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Cases like little Arthur and Sarah Everard that tug on the heartstrings are the ones PM Priti will use when the time comes for her capital punishment referendum.
I would rather see Emma Tustin and Wayne Couzens languish in jail for decades to contemplate how loathed they both are.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
Considering Labour were runners-up in 2019, have been runners-up in all but 1 election there and have frequently gained at least 30% of the vote . . . if Labour were credibly looking to win the next election shouldn't they be the ones pushing for a by-election gain?
No. Far from it.
The trouble with you Tory dinosaurs is that you seem to think that, if a person has voted Conservative on one occasion, he is therefore committed to voting Conservative for the rest of his life.
Not so.
There is in this country a very large pool of people who could go Conservative or could go Lib Dem. There is another large pool that could go Labour or could go Lib Dem. It seems to me that, in certain places, both of these pools are trending towards the Lib Dems at the same time.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
And there is yet another factor. Local political parties also change depending on the profile of the people who make them up at any one time. It seems to me that North Shropshire has had a convergence of good hard-working Lib Dem activists, which is why they did well in the last round of local elections, and established themselves as the clear challengers to the Tory hegemony and complacency.
White flight nimbys.
There was a hilarious Guardian article, not long ago, that was hang-wringing over the fact that numbers of black people were moving out into the sticks.
They were universally moving because of the same reason that everyone else moves out - bigger properties, better access to good education etc. The classic being the couple, living in flat, child on the way...
The Guardian hand writing was funny, because in all its talk of cultural dilution (of Black Culture) it sounded rather blood & soil.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
I'd add a 4th and a 5th from a look over at the US. The gory strung-out theatre accompanying the DP, death row, the appeals, the fascination with the murderer and with methods of execution, all of that. And - related - that it can imbue a sense of dark martyred glamour to the executee. Tee shirts, ghoulish followers, black humour, etc. Their last words getting reported and analyzed. Maybe they went with bravado. Whatever. This is all stuff you do not want. For truly evil offenders, lock up, forget, remember the victims. Eg the Beeb splashed the sentence and then very quickly replaced the faces of those convicted with that of the boy they abused and killed. This is the way to go imo.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
Is that new? Amersham has been the last stop on the Metropolitan Line since the 1890s hasn't it? It has, for well over a century, been the home of people who want some of the convenience of London without being in London.
Not too disappointed by Bexley but I was hoping for a bigger swing. What it reinforces for me is how hard it’ll be to deprive the Cons of a majority at the next election. They have such a strong position going in - an 80 seat majority which if anything you need to adjust upwards for the impact of boundary changes and the (removed) impact of Farage. One might hope for Tice to compensate for the latter but it looks unlikely based on his flop here.
What particularly concerns me is the high floor to their vote. They have their regular true blue voters plus (not all but most) Leavers. Of course there’s a big overlap there but even so I think we’re talking 35% as base camp. It doesn’t leave much of a climb from there to FPTP majority territory, esp when the spread of their vote is efficient.
And I think that’s the key to the election – relative efficiency of the vote. Lab/LD and their voters need to work as a team. My election pricing atm is 60% Con majority vs 40% hung parliament, but if I knew that SKS and SED were going to put their heads together and thrash out a serious GTTO plan I would flip that around.
There was no swing really - not if you factor in the LD decline. In fact it went the other way if you lump Tice in with the CP.
Guess you could say Cons lost votes to Tice and LDs went to Lab, leaving the core swing as Con to No Vote. Whichever way you analyze it, it's made me shorten Con majority. Looks value at 2.6. Although not as good value as laying Lab majority at 6.4.
Yes, I agree.
On North Shropshire what could make a difference is if the LP candidate stood down.
But is this right ?
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
And the candidates matter a lot in a by-election.
No it isn't right. I wasn't advocating it. I think it's a form of political corruption - but I know I come over as naive and pompous for saying so.
Oh I agree entirely.
My vote is important to me.
I want to vote for someone who stands for something that is close to my eccentric collection of beliefs.
If there is no one, I'd rather not vote (as happened in GE 2019).
Neither Johnson nor Corbyn were eccentric enough for you?
I was tempted by Corbyn ... but I am pro-arithmetic and the Labour manifesto was anti-arithmetic.
Unlike OGH (or apparently SKS) , I don't think Corbyn is antisemitic. Some of his followers, yes.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Fair do’s. Ten years ago I’d have written the same. But not any longer. I’m far less squeamish about the DP for cases like this. Plenty of functioning democracies have retained it for the most serious crimes. It’s not clear to me what makes our society sufficiently different that it’s taboo to even consider the question.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Fair do’s. Ten years ago I’d have written the same. But not any longer. I’m far less squeamish about the DP for cases like this. Plenty of functioning democracies have retained it for the most serious crimes. It’s not clear to me what makes our society sufficiently different that it’s taboo to even consider the question.
It's the years of press that would come from appeal, counter-appeal... that as @Leon points out makes the death penalty so awkward.
Best to let them rot in jail unremembered and unloved
Indeed. One of my favourites. Fondly remember him delivering a soliloquy hanging upside down on a rope as Tamberline.
Yes, he had some extraordinary performances. I was lucky enough to see the early 80s Richard III.
His recent(ish) Falstaff was a real disappointment. Kids couldn't understand why I'd been excited to see the production.
That reminds me of an episode of Frasier where he and Niles meet an actor played by Derek Jacobi who was their idol when young and finance a one man show for him and then find he’s dreadful and nobody gets what they saw in him…!
Anthony Sher however was brilliant, was lucky enough to see him in both “The Trial” and “The resistible rise of Arturo Ui” and after the performance of the latter he kindly had a private talk and Q&A with our school party for about half an hour after the performance. He was very pleasant, funny and interesting.
What made it worse is that daughter and I agree that Henry IV part I is Shakespeare's greatest play. (I'm not dogmatic about that, but she is.)
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully. That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
This is what I don't understand - I think the public expects 'minimum' to be the minimum, not 2/3 of it. Maybe legal terms have a different meaning.
And the public expectation is what happens.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
There shouldn't be a possibility of parole. Life should mean life and they should live their lives knowing they are never going to be released ... unless they can prove a wrongful conviction in the past, that is the only reason they should be kept alive.
I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who'd want to see more whole life sentences (like Couzens was given).
But there is a real question as to where you draw the line on that. Do you mean all murders (all of which have a life sentence with some minimum attached now)?
A lot of murderers are not like Couzens or Tustin. Murders are often one off incidents that are very much out of character - a row that got totally out of hand following consumption of drugs or alcohol, or a "one-punch murder" case where the intention to cause serious harm is clear but not to kill (it's still murder if you didn't anticipate their head would strike the kerb when they went down). And what of the kid with an IQ of 80 who fell in with a bad crowd and was highly suggestible?
Indeed, quite a lot of those who work in prisons say many murderers are nicer, more relatable people than (say) career burglars. It quite often is a case of one terrible night, one set of circumstances, and a dreadful rush of blood to the head.
Also worth noting the issue of discipline in prison. It's generally much harder with whole life sentences as what are you saving up good behaviour brownie points for if not the parole board? There are some bargaining chips authorities have in terms of prison privileges, but "keep your head down and serve your time, and one day you'll be out of here" isn't a bad one. That's not to say there should never be whole life terms, or even that there shouldn't be a few more. But it's not a simple question, I think.
Gartree prison is on my patch, and I have a number of patients there. Everyone there is a lifer.
The Gartree prisoners are better behaved than at Leicester Prison, whish has a lot more short timers and on remand. Partly it is because they are long term, but also their only chance of getting out is by behaving.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
I'd add a 4th and a 5th from a look over at the US. The gory strung-out theatre accompanying the DP, death row, the appeals, the fascination with the murderer and with methods of execution, all of that. And - related - that it can imbue a sense of dark martyred glamour to the executee. Tee shirts, ghoulish followers, black humour, etc. Their last words getting reported and analyzed. Maybe they went with bravado. Whatever. This is all stuff you do not want. For truly evil offenders, lock up, forget, remember the victims. Eg the Beeb splashed the sentence and then very quickly replaced the faces of those convicted with that of the boy they abused and killed. This is the way to go imo.
Not much of an argument when you consider the industries that spring up around the likes of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, who were not executed. You’re just describing a general cultural trait in America for sensationalism. Plenty of countries out there with the DP where this doesn’t go on.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
Also. The simple argument. What should the State do to show it's utter revulsion at those who kill? Why kill them of course.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
Arthur's late Great Grandfather Kenneth Labinjo was my family GP when I was a child in Wythall near Birmingham, so Olivia Labinjo- Halcrow was no sink estate peasant. There are factors in modern life like alcoholism, drug abuse and feral procreation that are just being brushed under the carpet by Government. Tim Lawton MP was on earlier demanding the lynching (my interpretation) of the social workers. I'm sure that'll help.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
Also. The simple argument. What should the State do to show it's utter revulsion at those who kill? Why kill them of course.
The state already does this. I don’t remember crocodile tears when there was state execution without trial for ISIS Beatles. Most people shrugged and thought “good”. Then went about their day. Apart from J Corbz of course.
Born in Derby and educated at a private school in Nottingham before a long but relatively unglamorous career in the Foreign Office, Lord Frost looks more like the middle-class provincials who predominate on the Tory benches than like his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause. He was condescended to by eu negotiators, who thought his threats to walk out theatrical and childish. The old guard of the diplomatic service are crueller: they think him a third-rater. No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
Also. The simple argument. What should the State do to show it's utter revulsion at those who kill? Why kill them of course.
The state already does this. I don’t remember crocodile tears when there was state execution without trial for ISIS Beatles. Most people shrugged and thought “good”. Then went about their day. Apart from J Corbz of course.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
You are such a cheery contributor
Doesn’t take many months Leon before every atom in the observable universe is contaminated with Omicron. In reality, exponential growth curves find a natural ceiling well before that.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
Arthur's late Great Grandfather Kenneth Labinjo was my family GP when I was a child in Wythall near Birmingham, so Olivia Labinjo- Halcrow was no sink estate peasant. There are factors in modern life like alcoholism, drug abuse and feral procreation that are just being brushed under the carpet by Government. Tim Lawton MP was on earlier demanding the lynching (my interpretation) of the social workers. I'm sure that'll help.
I do wonder, in this case, whether the social workers *really wanted to believe* the setup that Arthur had been placed into was a positive one - ie, what may have seemed to them like a stable family environment. And blinded by this bias, they ignored the warning signs.
Clearly, the best situation for the kid was to live with his grandparents. Perhaps that should be a more common solution to these kind of broken home situations.
Born in Derby and educated at a private school in Nottingham before a long but relatively unglamorous career in the Foreign Office, Lord Frost looks more like the middle-class provincials who predominate on the Tory benches than like his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause. He was condescended to by eu negotiators, who thought his threats to walk out theatrical and childish. The old guard of the diplomatic service are crueller: they think him a third-rater. No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Fair do’s. Ten years ago I’d have written the same. But not any longer. I’m far less squeamish about the DP for cases like this. Plenty of functioning democracies have retained it for the most serious crimes. It’s not clear to me what makes our society sufficiently different that it’s taboo to even consider the question.
Likewise, I’ve moved from being very anti death penalty to just-about-anti but highly persuadable
An example (albeit extreme): if it was finally proven that scientists in Wuhan deliberately engineered hideous pathogenic new viruses, and were so cavalier and callously indifferent they let them escape, I would want Nuremberg-style trials, and with convictions, executions. 20 million have died and millions more will die. ‘30 years in jail’ does not cut it
So then it’s just a question of when and where you draw the line, the principle is established: some crimes deserve death
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
Is that new? Amersham has been the last stop on the Metropolitan Line since the 1890s hasn't it? It has, for well over a century, been the home of people who want some of the convenience of London without being in London.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
And by 11 Feb ~200% of the UK population has it simultaneously
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
I'd add a 4th and a 5th from a look over at the US. The gory strung-out theatre accompanying the DP, death row, the appeals, the fascination with the murderer and with methods of execution, all of that. And - related - that it can imbue a sense of dark martyred glamour to the executee. Tee shirts, ghoulish followers, black humour, etc. Their last words getting reported and analyzed. Maybe they went with bravado. Whatever. This is all stuff you do not want. For truly evil offenders, lock up, forget, remember the victims. Eg the Beeb splashed the sentence and then very quickly replaced the faces of those convicted with that of the boy they abused and killed. This is the way to go imo.
Not much of an argument when you consider the industries that spring up around the likes of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, who were not executed. You’re just describing a general cultural trait in America for sensationalism. Plenty of countries out there with the DP where this doesn’t go on.
Some of it is USA specific, maybe, but we do tend to share some of their traits. More so than ever atm. But my main reason was as per my 1st post. There are also the points made by norfolk passmore.
As for other countries, the only ones in Europe with the DP are Russia and Belarus. And only Belarus has carried out any in recent years. Good role models? Not for me, no.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
Arthur's late Great Grandfather Kenneth Labinjo was my family GP when I was a child in Wythall near Birmingham, so Olivia Labinjo- Halcrow was no sink estate peasant. There are factors in modern life like alcoholism, drug abuse and feral procreation that are just being brushed under the carpet by Government. Tim Lawton MP was on earlier demanding the lynching (my interpretation) of the social workers. I'm sure that'll help.
Lynching social workers is, of course, an essential part of the public expiation process. Ed Balls lynching Sharon Shoesmith, for example.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Fair do’s. Ten years ago I’d have written the same. But not any longer. I’m far less squeamish about the DP for cases like this. Plenty of functioning democracies have retained it for the most serious crimes. It’s not clear to me what makes our society sufficiently different that it’s taboo to even consider the question.
Likewise, I’ve moved from being very anti death penalty to just-about-anti but highly persuadable
An example (albeit extreme): if it was finally proven that scientists in Wuhan deliberately engineered hideous pathogenic new viruses, and were so cavalier and callously indifferent they let them escape, I would want Nuremberg-style trials, and with convictions, executions. 20 million have died and millions more will die. ‘30 years in jail’ does not cut it
So then it’s just a question of when and where you draw the line, the principle is established: some crimes deserve death
I don’t think Arthur’s case deserves the death penalty. The stepmoms actions were terrible, but I think the case lacks a certain premeditated element that might justify talk of the death penalty.
The continued decline of political discourse in Poland.
A Polish television station needs to placate the ruling party, which is putting pressure on private media now. How does it do it? By hiring a pundit famous for anti-Semitic and homophobic tirades, and giving him his own show... https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1466673357655580672
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
You are such a cheery contributor
Doesn’t take many months Leon before every atom in the observable universe is contaminated with Omicron. In reality, exponential growth curves find a natural ceiling well before that.
Of course. If the case load follows my curve people will lock down voluntarily. The government will probably lockdown officially right after Xmas?
But then there’s the question: will lockdowns work against a bug as infectious as Omicron? We dunno
On the cheerier side, we still don’t know how Omicron functions in a highly vaxed context. It may be much less impressive. Fingers x’d
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
It isn't the ONLY argument against the death penalty.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
Also. The simple argument. What should the State do to show it's utter revulsion at those who kill? Why kill them of course.
The state already does this. I don’t remember crocodile tears when there was state execution without trial for ISIS Beatles. Most people shrugged and thought “good”. Then went about their day. Apart from J Corbz of course.
I can see we aren't going to agree on this
That’s what makes going backwards on abolition so difficult. Each side of the argument hold largely irreconcilable positions. Some of us have floated either side of the line of the argument but often they’re sincerely held views with no middle ground. As Leon says, you either do, or do not. “Everything else is haggling over the price” to use a comparator.
For that reason I don’t want there to be a referendum on it. But if there was, if you’re asking today, I’d probably tick Restore.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
I have some sympathy with that view, in that I share your revulsion at the crime. Wrongful conviction has been the mainstay argument against the death penalty, but there are others.
1. I do not want the State to have the power of life and death over me.
2. Juries will be less willing to convict if they think a death sentence might be imposed. In this case they might only have been willing to convict her for manslaughter rather than murder, and her sentence would then have been much lighter.
Father is jailed for 21 years and his partner for a minimum of 29 years over the torture and killing of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59522243
How minimum is minimum? I know lots of things get said about our criminal justice system but what is the real situation. I'm more concerned she never be placed in a role of care ever again.
"For some serious violent or sexual offences where the sentence is 7 years or more the offender will be released at the two-thirds point." 29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
Should have been a whole life tariff.
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
Cases like this, and the Everard murder make me wonder about the death penalty. If the only argument against it is wrongful convictions then cases like this are surely certain enough? Why should these people be allowed another minute of life?
For me because of human fallibility.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
The chance of a wrong conviction is important but it's not just that for me. I'd still be against the death penalty even if this factor were removed.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
Fair do’s. Ten years ago I’d have written the same. But not any longer. I’m far less squeamish about the DP for cases like this. Plenty of functioning democracies have retained it for the most serious crimes. It’s not clear to me what makes our society sufficiently different that it’s taboo to even consider the question.
Likewise, I’ve moved from being very anti death penalty to just-about-anti but highly persuadable
An example (albeit extreme): if it was finally proven that scientists in Wuhan deliberately engineered hideous pathogenic new viruses, and were so cavalier and callously indifferent they let them escape, I would want Nuremberg-style trials, and with convictions, executions. 20 million have died and millions more will die. ‘30 years in jail’ does not cut it
So then it’s just a question of when and where you draw the line, the principle is established: some crimes deserve death
Non lab zoonosis is back as very clear fav now. Lab theory still not to be laughed at but on the wane.
Looking at North Shropshire while a safe Tory seat the swing Labour would have required is little more than the swing the Tories did get to gain Crewe and Nantwich.
I can't see any reason why the Labour Party couldn't be bothered to try and win this seat, considering they were runners up and have a history of getting at least 30% of the vote there.
If Labour were serious about winning the next election, they'd have tried to win North Shropshire. Even if the Lib Dems gain it, Labour's weakness means I expect t he Tories will regain it as part of their majority at the next election.
BJO is right, Labour aren't a credible Opposition yet under Starmer. They aren't putting in the hard work that Cameron did.
The prospects of winning a seat rest more upon the propensity of those who didn’t vote for you last time to switch in your favour, than upon the number who actually voted for you the last time. Labour’s second places in the south are of no benefit if there aren’t enough among the rest of the voters who would ever be willing to back them.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
Maybe I should have used inverted commas. A 'Chain Reaction' that resulted in 'Tragedy'.
Look at the sexual and moral incontinence of the adults in poor Arthur's life.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
Arthur's late Great Grandfather Kenneth Labinjo was my family GP when I was a child in Wythall near Birmingham, so Olivia Labinjo- Halcrow was no sink estate peasant. There are factors in modern life like alcoholism, drug abuse and feral procreation that are just being brushed under the carpet by Government. Tim Lawton MP was on earlier demanding the lynching (my interpretation) of the social workers. I'm sure that'll help.
Lynching social workers is, of course, an essential part of the public expiation process. Ed Balls lynching Sharon Shoesmith, for example.
Poor dear Sharon Shoesmith was too busy directing her department to investigate the lady who was raising concerns about Baby P, to notice that Baby P was being battered to death.
The terrible crime that the lady was accused of? Child abuse - to wit, a teenager had been shouting horrible threats at her. She lost her temper for one second and shouted back. Once.
For that terrible, terrible crime, the energy of a child services department was required.
No, not that dear Sharon was playing a bizarre game of favourites and outcasts at all. No sir.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
The great thing with that maths is that by the end of Jan everyone in the country would have had it, and we'd be at herd immunity.
Another way of looking at it is in terms of total damage. Let's say current IFR is c.0.2% (pessimistic - based on 150 deaths per day and c.80,000 infections with 50% being recorded in tests). If Omicron increases breakthrough infection but IFR stays the same (which is pessimistic given boosters and new treatments) then the max deaths if 60 million are infected would be 120,000. But of course nowhere near 60m would be infected given pre-existing vax immunity, and IFR will keep going down. So we are into a bad case being probably similar to a bad flu season.
The number of confirmed Omicron Covid cases in Scotland has jumped to 29 as Nicola Sturgeon warns the variant is now spreading fast in the community.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
Some easy maths to be done here. If Omicron is widely seeded across the UK - as it now seems - with community transmission, there are probably 500 cases (conservatively) in the UK. If Omicron doubles every 4 days (it’s worse in Gauteng), that’s
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
You are such a cheery contributor
Doesn’t take many months Leon before every atom in the observable universe is contaminated with Omicron. In reality, exponential growth curves find a natural ceiling well before that.
Of course. If the case load follows my curve people will lock down voluntarily. The government will probably lockdown officially right after Xmas?
But then there’s the question: will lockdowns work against a bug as infectious as Omicron? We dunno
On the cheerier side, we still don’t know how Omicron functions in a highly vaxed context. It may be much less impressive. Fingers x’d
I don’t think they will lockdown here. If the vaccines work and it’s largely anti vaxxers causing the problem, the clamour will be for vaxports, antivax taxes and whatever else before generalised lockdown. Including from no 11 and the Cabinet.
I wonder what calibre he was? And what nature of ammunition it was?
57mm I believe so likely AP. No, not that kind of A. piercing.
Sudden memory of the time I found a 2pdr shot on the beach when I was very small indeed. Fortunately it was a solid AP shot. Probably fired from one of the WW2 pillboxes along that stretch of the SE Scotland coast.
Comments
The whole situation of the main characters in Arthur’s life is unbelievably tragic.
29 year sentence: 19 yrs 4 months.
She's 32 now so she'll be at least 51 when released, which is heavily odds against to have another child thankfully.
That's the stepmum, Emma Tustin. & If she ever is in a relationship with another man, he must be denied any and all access.
Personally I don't think she should be let out. At a minimum.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/sep/10/gregory-doran-takes-leave-from-rsc-to-care-for-terminally-ill-antony-sher
If we had it, should have been the death penalty. Thankfully we don't have it, but should be a whole life tariff.
It is for the father - he's eligible to apply after 14 years, two-thirds of his 21 year manslaughter sentence.
The Labour and the LibDem candidate are very different with very different backgrounds and they appeal to very different folks.
And the candidates matter a lot in a by-election.
Anthony Sher however was brilliant, was lucky enough to see him in both “The Trial” and “The resistible rise of Arturo Ui” and after the performance of the latter he kindly had a private talk and Q&A with our school party for about half an hour after the performance. He was very pleasant, funny and interesting.
Johnson and Starmer will both be content with the result in the short term. ("Conservatives hold safest seat in England" is not a shock for the latter). Starmer's medium term challenge, and Johnson's longer term concern if it happens, is getting supporters of Apathy to switch to Labour.
The post is wrong - it refers to other offences where it's correct - if you're sentenced to nine years for GBH, you're eligible to apply for parole after six years (two-thirds) and are then (potentially) out on licence for the remaining three.
But, for a murder conviction, the mandatory sentence is LIFE imprisonment, and you can't apply the two-thirds rule to that. So they set a minimum tariff and that genuinely is the earliest the prisoner can apply for parole. If released, they are then on licence (so can be recalled, as Colin Pitchfork was recently) for the rest of their life.
There is no system people can possibly design which can not allow cases to fall through the cracks leading to wrongful convictions.
Whether it be because of dodgy Police planting evidence, or dodgy science, or anything else . . . to execute an innocent no matter how unlikely is out of question - and no system people can design could ever exclude the possibility of mistakes.
But the alternative should be life without parole, unless that person can prove their innocence in the future.
Pre- Owen Paterson you wouldn't have credited Labour with 25% in OB and S. Owen Paterson and Peppa Pig have been bonuses I was not expecting. I am still anticipating price inflation and astronomical energy price inflation next year, although prior to that I am foreseeing a booster boost for Johnson too. But then how many encores can we expect from the vaccination one trick pony?
My nerves have been steadied that Johnson is less likely to be jettisoned in favour of someone "normal" before the next GE.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/3169.html
Under the useless nonentity.
Nothing Nada sweet FA
Hence the yeah but Corbyn defence
Isn’t it about time you explained Big John?
PM Starmer v PM Big John, what exactly are the big policy differences to explain all your arm whirling belligerence? Nuclear weapons. Nationalisation? Pro Palestine? The need for huge and fiscally unbalanced state spending pledges is the best way to win elections?
Or is it you’ve just got a bad case of the trots, call in the checka just because Molotov cocktails aren’t mixed to your liking?
Do speak up on your disappointments with PM Starmers policy’s, we are all waiting to hear and learn from you.
PS unlike Philip Thompson who explained in policy terms to us why he called ReformUK loonies, I am predicting silence from you as typical when People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front go down into the granola of why they are at war.
My vote is important to me.
I want to vote for someone who stands for something that is close to my eccentric collection of beliefs.
If there is no one, I'd rather not vote (as happened in GE 2019).
Born in Derby and educated at a private school in Nottingham before a long but relatively unglamorous career in the Foreign Office, Lord Frost looks more like the middle-class provincials who predominate on the Tory benches than like his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause. He was condescended to by eu negotiators, who thought his threats to walk out theatrical and childish. The old guard of the diplomatic service are crueller: they think him a third-rater. No great surprise, says one former colleague. “They hate his guts, because he’s proved them all wrong and destroyed their life’s work.”
https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/12/04/to-understand-lord-frost-is-to-understand-britains-approach-to-brexit?frsc=dg|e
I can't see any reason why the Labour Party couldn't be bothered to try and win this seat, considering they were runners up and have a history of getting at least 30% of the vote there.
If Labour were serious about winning the next election, they'd have tried to win North Shropshire. Even if the Lib Dems gain it, Labour's weakness means I expect t he Tories will regain it as part of their majority at the next election.
BJO is right, Labour aren't a credible Opposition yet under Starmer. They aren't putting in the hard work that Cameron did.
They said his deal was crap, and he agrees with them, now...
This is the heart of the matter. A vote for SLab helps the Tories. End of.
Firstly, there's a moral argument - that we just shouldn't deliberately take a life even in these circumstances.
Secondly, there's a plea incentives argument. If the death sentence is mandatory for certain offences, the accused will almost always plead not guilty, not reveal a body's whereabouts etc, and cause additional pain to victims' families etc (Couzens is an example - he did eventually plead guilty which is a tiny mercy at least for Sarah Everard's family not having to go through weeks in a court publicly dissecting the awful detail with him staring back). If it's NOT mandatory, there is a temptation for the innocent to plead guilty (as that would be a mitigating factor).
Thirdly, it can lead to an offending spiral - if you're already looking at a death sentence, there is a temptation to kill witnesses, dispose of a corpse etc as it literally cannot get worse for you.
The Protocol got us out of a bad situation as well as possible and in Article 16 allowed him to create the solution for the future. Like Kirk rewriting the programming, that seemingly innocuous Article inserted into the Protocol allowed Britain to find a winning solution to the previously unwinnable Kobayashi Maru that Barnier, May, Robbins and Grieves had conspired to create.
The First Minister says cases of the little-understood strain will likely continue to rise in the coming days and the outbreak is no longer linked to single private event on November 20.
Many of the new cases are now being linked to a Steps concert at the Hydro two days later.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/2792382/omicron-covid-cases-in-scotland-jump-to-29-as-variant-now-spreading-in-community/
Just my 2p.
I’m generally pretty critical of the often short sentences for serious crimes that get doled out, but in this case I think the judge has got it about right.
Imagine ending up at a Steps concert . . .
Either way the lions share of the blame for the 2019 failure lies not with Corbyn, but with Jo Swinson who, for some bizarre reason, gave Boris an election on his terms and timing.
The death penalty is the state (on behalf of us all) killing a person in premeditated cold blood. That it (and therefore we) don't countenance this draws a clear line between us (and the society we aspire to) and those who do evil.
What it's saying (to me) is: "We are not like you. We are so not like you that despite all you have done we will not kill you."
That's how I feel about it but I can easily understand other views, esp at a time like this.
The trouble with you Tory dinosaurs is that you seem to think that, if a person has voted Conservative on one occasion, he is therefore committed to voting Conservative for the rest of his life.
Not so.
There is in this country a very large pool of people who could go Conservative or could go Lib Dem. There is another large pool that could go Labour or could go Lib Dem. It seems to me that, in certain places, both of these pools are trending towards the Lib Dems at the same time.
And there is another factor. In Chesham & Amersham, there were very many people who had moved there in order to get away from London. Similarly, I think, there are lots of people who have moved out of Birmingham and other cities. So the voting population now is not as it was just a few years ago.
And there is yet another factor. Local political parties also change depending on the profile of the people who make them up at any one time. It seems to me that North Shropshire has had a convergence of good hard-working Lib Dem activists, which is why they did well in the last round of local elections, and established themselves as the clear challengers to the Tory hegemony and complacency.
... his boss, who was born in New York and educated in Brussels and at Eton, and for whom Brexit appears more a wheeze than a cause.
A mother who has a child, leaves father, shacks up with someone else and kills him. A father who takes up with a woman and cruelly treats and abandons his own son to make this woman happy. A step-mother who has 5 children by 4 different men, who has never worked, who throws herself out of the window and aborts another child while in custody for some offence.
I don't want to come over as some ancient prude. Evil has existed in all sorts of times and places and is no respecter of class or education. But if you look at a lot of these child murder/child abuse cases you see similar patterns: look at Baby P or any of the others over the years.
Might we at some point as a society maybe think about saying a bit more clearly that this sort of sequential rutting and casual creation and abandonment of children is, well, wrong and to be discouraged?
And, no, I don't have an easy answer as to how.
As I said on the previous thread, I wouldn't be on the LDs at these odds - I think they're chances are more around the 18-20% level, not the 33-40% - but it is far from impossible that they win the by-election. 6-1 shots do, after all, come in one-in-six times.
But there is a real question as to where you draw the line on that. Do you mean all murders (all of which have a life sentence with some minimum attached now)?
A lot of murderers are not like Couzens or Tustin. Murders are often one off incidents that are very much out of character - a row that got totally out of hand following consumption of drugs or alcohol, or a "one-punch murder" case where the intention to cause serious harm is clear but not to kill (it's still murder if you didn't anticipate their head would strike the kerb when they went down). And what of the kid with an IQ of 80 who fell in with a bad crowd and was highly suggestible?
Indeed, quite a lot of those who work in prisons say many murderers are nicer, more relatable people than (say) career burglars. It quite often is a case of one terrible night, one set of circumstances, and a dreadful rush of blood to the head.
Also worth noting the issue of discipline in prison. It's generally much harder with whole life sentences as what are you saving up good behaviour brownie points for if not the parole board? There are some bargaining chips authorities have in terms of prison privileges, but "keep your head down and serve your time, and one day you'll be out of here" isn't a bad one. That's not to say there should never be whole life terms, or even that there shouldn't be a few more. But it's not a simple question, I think.
I have said I expect the Lib Dems to gain the seat, but I think Labour should have tried to gain it themselves.
Virtually any seat can be lost by a government in a by-election since the loss of office isn't at risk, the by-election provides an opportunity to provide a free protest vote against the government without risking the Opposition becoming the government.
Yes it would have taken a large swing for Labour to win this, but it'd take a large swing for them to win the next election too.
The swing required for Labour to gain this seat isn't much larger than the swing the Tories from Opposition did achieve in Crewe and Nantwich. The swing required is less than the swing that Labour got to gain South East Staffordshire from the Tories in 1996.
If Labour were ready for office like the Tories 2010 or Labour 1997 then they should be in contention in a by-election like North Shropshire.
Screamingly funny as in either you like concentration camp jokes, or you like screaming.
You see, in 1930s Germany, such people existed. Drunken, violent, sexual abuse etc etc.
So when the Nazi's came to power, it was time to smarten these people up....
After a while (and a fair bit of effort), the Nazis started housing such people in indestructible concrete housing (because of the fires) and put barbed wire round them....
This still wasn't enough.
Then came the outbreak of war - the incorrigible incorrigibles were sent to concentration camps. The less incorrigible men were drafted into the army. Where they nearly all ended up in punishment battalions - since they weren't good at the discipline vs consequences thing.
As the final cherry on the cake, some found a home in the Dirlewanger Brigade....
I would rather see Emma Tustin and Wayne Couzens languish in jail for decades to contemplate how loathed they both are.
They were universally moving because of the same reason that everyone else moves out - bigger properties, better access to good education etc. The classic being the couple, living in flat, child on the way...
The Guardian hand writing was funny, because in all its talk of cultural dilution (of Black Culture) it sounded rather blood & soil.
1000 cases a day by Dec 6
2000 cases by Dec 10
4000 cases by Dec 14
8000 cases by Dec 18
16,000 cases by Dec 22
32,000 cases by Boxing Day
64,000 cases by Dec 30
128,000 cases by Jan 3
256,000 cases by Jan 7
512,000 cases by Jan 11
1,028,000 cases a day by the middle of Jan
Quite some pressure on the NHS there. Let’s hope they’re all ‘mild’
Unlike OGH (or apparently SKS) , I don't think Corbyn is antisemitic. Some of his followers, yes.
Best to let them rot in jail unremembered and unloved
(I'm not dogmatic about that, but she is.)
The Gartree prisoners are better behaved than at Leicester Prison, whish has a lot more short timers and on remand. Partly it is because they are long term, but also their only chance of getting out is by behaving.
Why kill them of course.
What both sides of the debate tend to forget is that twats in power are still twats - but also still in power.
Clearly, the best situation for the kid was to live with his grandparents. Perhaps that should be a more common solution to these kind of broken home situations.
I am reminded as always at how small and incestuous our political classes are. There really are no outsiders.
Frosty was at Nottingham High School at the same time as Edward "Dishwater" Davey. And Ed "National Treasure" Balls.
And after school, they all trooped off to Oxford together.
An example (albeit extreme): if it was finally proven that scientists in Wuhan deliberately engineered hideous pathogenic new viruses, and were so cavalier and callously indifferent they let them escape, I would want Nuremberg-style trials, and with convictions, executions. 20 million have died and millions more will die. ‘30 years in jail’ does not cut it
So then it’s just a question of when and where you draw the line, the principle is established: some crimes deserve death
As for other countries, the only ones in Europe with the DP are Russia and Belarus. And only Belarus has carried out any in recent years. Good role models? Not for me, no.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/ed-balls-sharon-shoesmith-baby-p-sacking-payout
A Polish television station needs to placate the ruling party, which is putting pressure on private media now. How does it do it? By hiring a pundit famous for anti-Semitic and homophobic tirades, and giving him his own show...
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1466673357655580672
But then there’s the question: will lockdowns work against a bug as infectious as Omicron? We dunno
On the cheerier side, we still don’t know how Omicron functions in a highly vaxed context. It may be much less impressive. Fingers x’d
For that reason I don’t want there to be a referendum on it. But if there was, if you’re asking today, I’d probably tick Restore.
1. I do not want the State to have the power of life and death over me.
2. Juries will be less willing to convict if they think a death sentence might be imposed. In this case they might only have been willing to convict her for manslaughter rather than murder, and her sentence would then have been much lighter.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19760909.covid-scotland-omicron-cases-rise-29-nicola-sturgeon-says/?ref=ebbn
The terrible crime that the lady was accused of? Child abuse - to wit, a teenager had been shouting horrible threats at her. She lost her temper for one second and shouted back. Once.
For that terrible, terrible crime, the energy of a child services department was required.
No, not that dear Sharon was playing a bizarre game of favourites and outcasts at all. No sir.
Another way of looking at it is in terms of total damage. Let's say current IFR is c.0.2% (pessimistic - based on 150 deaths per day and c.80,000 infections with 50% being recorded in tests). If Omicron increases breakthrough infection but IFR stays the same (which is pessimistic given boosters and new treatments) then the max deaths if 60 million are infected would be 120,000. But of course nowhere near 60m would be infected given pre-existing vax immunity, and IFR will keep going down. So we are into a bad case being probably similar to a bad flu season.