There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
That's a circular argument, the models said if we only stick to plan b then we'd have 600-6000 deaths per day and 3000 non-incidental hospital admissions per day peaking at somewhere between 60k and 100k. We only have plan b and those predictions are clearly incorrect.
Which models are you talking about? 3,000 hospital admissions for England looks likely to me.
Djokovic still stuck at airport. He's not getting in is he? State government denying they gave it the OK. Says it's very much a Federal issue. Some questions about visa too.
Who was it who gave him the impression he would be able to get in?
He passed an medical panel anonymously apparently. As did a handful of others among 26 who applied. But we don't know who they are. Apparently, though, this exemption isn't covered by his visa status. Looks like the tennis authorities have cocked this up. But Novak loves to be a martyr. As proved by the fact he went public beforehand.
Seems as though his tour of Australia will be even less successful than England’s. They at least made it out of the airport.
England had a better start this morning and took 3 Australian wickets.
It is possible they could win their first Test in Australia since 2011
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
Milo Ponsford. Now that is a name you would not want
Milo Ponsford, 26, took rope to a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020. He is one of four people charged with illegally removing the monument to the slave trader. He claimed that stopping this "harm" gave him a lawful excuse to remove it.
So it isn't a matter of could they actually be identified as the culprits i.e that perhaps the plod got the wrong man. This sends a rather worrying message.
There is something rather wrong when pissy man hands himself in the next day, apologises for being drunk knobhead, but goes to jail....and these people are innocent because the "harm" of a statue means its ok.
Occasionally a jury knows perfectly well an offence has been committed but is not prepared to convict a person of it in the circumstances. This could well be one of them.
Our system in general does not forbid or prevent this happening. It can be a useful safety valve against arbitrary government or in special cases.
We need to cut the isolation time for people who test positive, to alleviate the staff shortage that is doing so much harm to the NHS (and the rest of the economy)
I suggest we adopt a policy of 'take a LF test as soon as symptoms stop, and again daily, and come back to work as soon as you have a negative one'
You may get a few false negative, and consequently the occasional additional transition, but this will be minor compared to the benefit of having a lot of staff back sooner.
That's a circular argument, the models said if we only stick to plan b then we'd have 600-6000 deaths per day and 3000 non-incidental hospital admissions per day peaking at somewhere between 60k and 100k. We only have plan b and those predictions are clearly incorrect.
They didn't say that. They said 'On assumption X and assumption Y etc etc our model shows this result', and they emphasised the uncertainties in all those assumptions. We now know more, and the assumptions were, as it turned out, pessimistic, luckily. But also, we didn't only have plan B, we had plan B with a massive effort to get boosters into arms, and we also had quite a large self-imposed semi-lockdown arising from the public's wish to avoid cancelling their Xmas arrangements.
The attempt by many, most notably Fraser Nelson, to politicise this is a disgrace.
That's not true, the reduction from 6 months to 3 months was done well in advance of the models and the government opening up the taps on boosters was also done before the models. Look at PB's guessing game, we actually got the peak of the booster programme pretty bloody close on aggregate. These inputs should all already have been taken into account.
Additionally, that's what the modelling is for. That they didn't predict that - no people won't want to ruin their Xmas by having COVID so will probably stay away from places they could get it - is why their numbers are so out of step with reality. That's exactly what they're supposed to be predicting. You're letting them off the hook, but they've literally failed to do their jobs properly.
So I think you need to actually look at what happened, not this made up scenario where everything they got wrong can be excused.
Hang on, which models are you talking about? As I said, the Speccie has been extremely selective in its tendentious graphs, cherry-picking not only the models but individual charts within those models to support some bizarre political point. It's Daily Mail stuff.
Sure, someone should do a proper evaluation, without cherry-picking data to get a predefined answer, on what could be done to better support decision making in the future, but it's a lot of work to do a worthwhile job on that. And I suspect the answer will simply be that the uncertainties were very large.
The clip won't do anything for Johnson's chances of staving off a confidence vote in the coming months.
I am becoming much more doubtful Boris will be challenged soon and certainly not while Omicron is raging
I think it is likely the tories will lead in a poll by the end of January which will reduce the chances of a challenge even more, and if they do it will show how poor SKS is, because with the nonsense the tories have got themselves into over the past 3 months the chances of a tory lead in a poll should be 1000/1.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Criminal damage is an "either way" offence meaning it can be tried at the either the Crown Court or Magistrates' Court.
It has always been the case that defendants can demand, in such cases, to go to jury trial at the Crown Court. The risk is that the sentence can be more than six months in prison if found guilty, and it's a more drawn out process, but generally you have a higher chance of acquittal.
The prosecution can also push an either way case to the Crown Court if they want to seek a sentence over six months, but I strongly suspect this particular one would have been at the instigation of the defence as the facts aren't really in dispute and it's just a question of the defendant's motives. It's part of the point of a jury trial - a panel of your peers is simply more likely to say "We're sympathetic and have a sense it wouldn't be fair to convict" or at least have enough of those to avoid conviction. A magistrate, as a professional, is more likely to say "I'm sympathetic but this is the law".
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
VAT on fuel does seem like an unlikely hill for the PM to want to die on. Scrapping it was a key part of the Brexit campaign, and is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the price increases coming down the line. Middle England is really going to notice the price increases, a month before the local elections.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
and not just admiring the hole that Johnson is digging himself?
I believe in Scotland there is currently ONE person in intensive care with Omicron . This is insane in terms of overreaction. Dont get me on facemasks in schools as well
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
Milo Ponsford. Now that is a name you would not want
Milo Ponsford, 26, took rope to a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020. He is one of four people charged with illegally removing the monument to the slave trader. He claimed that stopping this "harm" gave him a lawful excuse to remove it.
So it isn't a matter of could they actually be identified as the culprits i.e that perhaps the plod got the wrong man. This sends a rather worrying message.
There is something rather wrong when pissy man hands himself in the next day, apologises for being drunk knobhead, but goes to jail....and these people are innocent because the "harm" of a statue means its ok.
Occasionally a jury knows perfectly well an offence has been committed but is not prepared to convict a person of it in the circumstances. This could well be one of them.
Our system in general does not forbid or prevent this happening. It can be a useful safety valve against arbitrary government or in special cases.
So long as every such case goes to crown court, then this is fine.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Criminal damage is an "either way" offence meaning it can be tried at the either the Crown Court or Magistrates' Court.
It has always been the case that defendants can demand, in such cases, to go to jury trial at the Crown Court. The risk is that the sentence can be more than six months in prison if found guilty, and it's a more drawn out process, but generally you have a higher chance of acquittal.
The prosecution can also push an either way case to the Crown Court if they want to seek a sentence over six months, but I strongly suspect this particular one would have been at the instigation of the defence as the facts aren't really in dispute and it's just a question of the defendant's motives. It's part of the point of a jury trial - a panel of your peers is simply more likely to say "We're sympathetic and have a sense it wouldn't be fair to convict" or at least have enough of those to avoid conviction. A magistrate, as a professional, is more likely to say "I'm sympathetic but this is the law".
Thanks for that succinct summary (sic) of the situation. Yes, if I were up for that sort of offence, I’d probably try and get a jury too.
Assuming I had the means to pay for my representation, which most people really don’t.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Criminal damage is an "either way" offence meaning it can be tried at the either the Crown Court or Magistrates' Court.
It has always been the case that defendants can demand, in such cases, to go to jury trial at the Crown Court. The risk is that the sentence can be more than six months in prison if found guilty, and it's a more drawn out process, but generally you have a higher chance of acquittal.
The prosecution can also push an either way case to the Crown Court if they want to seek a sentence over six months, but I strongly suspect this particular one would have been at the instigation of the defence as the facts aren't really in dispute and it's just a question of the defendant's motives. It's part of the point of a jury trial - a panel of your peers is simply more likely to say "We're sympathetic and have a sense it wouldn't be fair to convict" or at least have enough of those to avoid conviction. A magistrate, as a professional, is more likely to say "I'm sympathetic but this is the law".
Magistrates on the whole are not professionals (but they have a Clerk who is).
One of those found innocent isn't even from sodding Bristol. They came all the way from Southampton. I was so offended on behalf of the people of Bristol having to walk past it, I came 100 miles to rip it down.
I don't understand a jury finding them not guilty. The little scrotes should have got hard time.
There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
What's sauce for the goose ...
And that's the slippery slope....
You say slippery slope, I say essential protection of liberty.
Juries can only nullify by acquitting if they think it's justified. They can't convict where the law doesn't permit it (and if they do that can be appealled).
We could abolish juries and get rid of this in one stroke, but we don't for good reason.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Perhaps it's because had they been convicted they'd have received lengthy custodial sentences.
The thing about this case is the egregious neglect and intransigence of Bristol Council. Not just the statue, but the Colston Hall, Colston School etc. were just insults to a richly multi-cultural city. They did nothing for years, and the George Floyd case was the just trigger for people to finally take matters into their own hands. That statue should have come down decades ago.
The George Floyd case has almost no relevance to the UK in my opinion.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
What's sauce for the goose ...
And that's the slippery slope....
yes on a jury of 12 you will nearly always get political views across the spectrum so politics should be kept well away from consideration of whether somebody is guilty or not given the usual need to get at least 10 jurors to find a defendant guilty .
I wonder what the F1 circus is thinking, looking at everything going on with the tennis players. There’s only a couple of hundred tennis players, against a couple of thousand who travel with F1.
Hope PB's F1 fans are OK with so many races last season being held in what Freedom House terms Not Free countries. Let's see now:
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
Milo Ponsford. Now that is a name you would not want
Milo Ponsford, 26, took rope to a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020. He is one of four people charged with illegally removing the monument to the slave trader. He claimed that stopping this "harm" gave him a lawful excuse to remove it.
So it isn't a matter of could they actually be identified as the culprits i.e that perhaps the plod got the wrong man. This sends a rather worrying message.
There is something rather wrong when pissy man hands himself in the next day, apologises for being drunk knobhead, but goes to jail....and these people are innocent because the "harm" of a statue means its ok.
Occasionally a jury knows perfectly well an offence has been committed but is not prepared to convict a person of it in the circumstances. This could well be one of them.
Our system in general does not forbid or prevent this happening. It can be a useful safety valve against arbitrary government or in special cases.
So long as every such case goes to crown court, then this is fine.
They basically do, as only with summary offences (i.e. "petty crimes") can a defendant not require a jury trial. You'd almost always opt for that if your defence if your defence was "yeah, I did it, but cut me some slack..." as your chances with a jury are so much better.
It should be said such cases are rare, though. A criminal damage case is far more likely to be a defendant saying "it wasn't me who chucked the brick". In such cases, you'd generally go for magistrates' court - higher chance of conviction, but lower risk of a harsh sentence, and it's all over quicker.
I wonder what the F1 circus is thinking, looking at everything going on with the tennis players. There’s only a couple of hundred tennis players, against a couple of thousand who travel with F1.
Hope PB's F1 fans are OK with so many races last season being held in what Freedom House terms Not Free countries. Let's see now:
A jury of 12 PBers would be fun 6 weeks of argument, repeating the same points over and over. The judge would allow them to reach a majority verdict. No thanks. We're loving this. Expect a verdict in 2040 or someone dies. Whichever is first.
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
What's sauce for the goose ...
And that's the slippery slope....
yes on a jury of 12 you will nearly always get political views across the spectrum so politics should be kept well away from consideration of whether somebody is guilty or not given the usual need to get at least 10 jurors to find a defendant guilty .
But that's the point. The 12 ought to be spread out politically so if say half a dozen object to conviction and want to nullify then they have that right.
The burden to get unanimity or close to it is on the prosecution.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
Milo Ponsford. Now that is a name you would not want
Milo Ponsford, 26, took rope to a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020. He is one of four people charged with illegally removing the monument to the slave trader. He claimed that stopping this "harm" gave him a lawful excuse to remove it.
So it isn't a matter of could they actually be identified as the culprits i.e that perhaps the plod got the wrong man. This sends a rather worrying message.
There is something rather wrong when pissy man hands himself in the next day, apologises for being drunk knobhead, but goes to jail....and these people are innocent because the "harm" of a statue means its ok.
Occasionally a jury knows perfectly well an offence has been committed but is not prepared to convict a person of it in the circumstances. This could well be one of them.
Our system in general does not forbid or prevent this happening. It can be a useful safety valve against arbitrary government or in special cases.
So long as every such case goes to crown court, then this is fine.
Yes; no jury verdict sets a precedent in legal terms, ever. Though a series of them might affect the attitudes of prosecutors.
I suspect juries would get fed up of a stream of copy cat criminal damage exponents.
You can strongly disagree with the actions of woke youth without wanting them to go to prison.
At a tangent from this, I suspect part of the low conviction rate for rape and some other sexual offences is that juries have a different view from the law of what really constitutes rape, and are deeply unwilling to see some bloke with no previous who was consensually in bed with a girl when contested stuff starts happening face a tariff with a 5 year start point.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
If the accused had committed the offense then the verdict should have been guilty. It is up to the judge in sentencing to apply any mitigating circumstances.
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
There are 1,000s of Australians still unable to return to Australia because flights / quarantine isn't available when they arrive.
Letting someone in who hasn't followed any of the rules (especially some famous) is political dynamite that is now being used for election point scoring.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
Of course. Commenting on her motivations, Rhian Graham stated "well, I was just sat on the settee in me nana's lounge after dinner, wiping me hands on a serviette after a trip to the toilet when I heard that Coulson who has the statue was a slave trader and I was like 'pardon?' and that was it"
How do you get acquitted of criminal damage when you damaged criminally a statue that doesn't belong to you?
Self-defence. They were fighting against the ingrained white supremacy legacy of colonialism and that struck the first blow. Many many blows in fact.
I believe in Scotland there is currently ONE person in intensive care with Omicron . This is insane in terms of overreaction. Dont get me on facemasks in schools as well
Yebbut safety safety safety safety safety safety.
It plays very well. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are both more popular than the UK one, and I strongly suspect that this will still be the case after all the Covid crap has been (and please let this be true) finally thrown in the dustbin later in the Spring.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Criminal damage is an "either way" offence meaning it can be tried at the either the Crown Court or Magistrates' Court.
It has always been the case that defendants can demand, in such cases, to go to jury trial at the Crown Court. The risk is that the sentence can be more than six months in prison if found guilty, and it's a more drawn out process, but generally you have a higher chance of acquittal.
The prosecution can also push an either way case to the Crown Court if they want to seek a sentence over six months, but I strongly suspect this particular one would have been at the instigation of the defence as the facts aren't really in dispute and it's just a question of the defendant's motives. It's part of the point of a jury trial - a panel of your peers is simply more likely to say "We're sympathetic and have a sense it wouldn't be fair to convict" or at least have enough of those to avoid conviction. A magistrate, as a professional, is more likely to say "I'm sympathetic but this is the law".
Magistrates on the whole are not professionals (but they have a Clerk who is).
Although there are a lot of lay magistrates, there's no question that this particular case would have been heard by a district judge sitting in the Magistrates' Court (had they not opted for Crown Court trial). Lay magistrates hear the smaller, low profile stuff.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Perhaps it's because had they been convicted they'd have received lengthy custodial sentences.
The thing about this case is the egregious neglect and intransigence of Bristol Council. Not just the statue, but the Colston Hall, Colston School etc. were just insults to a richly multi-cultural city. They did nothing for years, and the George Floyd case was the just trigger for people to finally take matters into their own hands. That statue should have come down decades ago.
The George Floyd case has almost no relevance to the UK in my opinion.
The George Floyd case was an example of US police brutality against Black people. That has its roots in systematic, institutionalised racism in American society. That in turn has its roots in slavery. Slavery was brought to America and the West Indies by the British. And specifically by men like Colston who controlled and enriched themselves from the slave trade. I don't think it takes too much effort to see that the two things are intrinsically linked.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
VAT on fuel does seem like an unlikely hill for the PM to want to die on. Scrapping it was a key part of the Brexit campaign, and is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the price increases coming down the line. Middle England is really going to notice the price increases, a month before the local elections.
The problem is they wouldn't notice any VAT cut. It just knocks 5% off whatever the new charges would be so they are 25-35% higher rather than 30-40% higher.
No sane politician is going to cut a tax like that as there is no electoral benefit from doing so.
This is Johnson's full "answer" to David's question from last night's Covid press conference. Rambling doesn't describe it, but not quite as scary as the edited version suggests:
On the politics of Covid, Johnson seems confident to attack Labour's perceived caution, while Labour is reluctant to lead on Johnson's Covid record = see PMQs where Rayner lead on inflation. My view: this makes sense for Johnson as his immediate task is to stop his MPs sending letters to the Chair of the 1922 Committee. This constituency is very anti-lockdown measures. I doubt the public at large, which is a lot more cautious, will be particularly impressed, but as I say, they are less immediately important.
One of those found innocent isn't even from sodding Bristol. They came all the way from Southampton. I was so offended on behalf of the people of Bristol having to walk past it, I came 100 miles to rip it down.
I don't understand a jury finding them not guilty. The little scrotes should have got hard time.
Yes. Perhaps juries should be replaced by a Star Chamber of right wing Conservative MPs
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
If the accused had committed the offense then the verdict should have been guilty. It is up to the judge in sentencing to apply any mitigating circumstances.
yes I doubt if anyone of the "alleged" statue tearer downers had been found guilty they would have anything other than a fine which is ok as it should be up to the judge to decide the punishment and the jury to decide if they were guilty of breaking the law - For better or worse parliament decides what is the law ,not juries or the police for that matter.
I fear not. It's opening up a hornet's nest. Are people now to be allowed to desecrate public monuments as they choose? Or will it be a matter of you having to defend yourself in court each time - in front of an expensive jury? What about Gladstone? A building named after him was re-named by Liverpool university because of his family's links to slavery. Would his statues be fair game? Where do you draw the line? We have a statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff. Some Tories (who he called vermin) or anti-NHS libertarians might find that offensive. Should someone be allowed to tear it down? Their defence was party based on the council's refusal to take the statue down. So in other words democracy failed them and so they took matters into their own hands. The trouble is that people on the right will absorb the same message and I'd don't think the 'woke' will like the consequences.
Or perhaps they will actually. Maybe they want a threatening vigilante gang of fascists to deal with. I do sometimes get a sense of disappointment from some of the true hardcore that they don't have the kind of enemy antifa and BLM face in the US. Farage is a bit of a wet rag deserving of nothing more than milkshake.
More broadly why was this in front of a jury anyway? I thought jury trials were restricted due to all the funding issues with the court system? What was the maximum sentence they potentially faced? Justice is dispensed rather arbitrarily on a day to day basis but clearly only the best will do for four middle class white people - Sage, Milo, Rhian and Jake. Maybe the people who run our criminal justice system look upon them as the sort of people who could be their own children. How horrifying would it be for them to be caught in such a thing purely because of their well-intentioned anti-racist principles. I'd be happy for the better informed to correct me but that is how it looks to the outsider.
This is Johnson's full "answer" to David's question from last night's Covid press conference. Rambling doesn't describe it, but not quite as scary as the edited version suggests:
On the politics of Covid, Johnson seems confident to attack Labour's perceived caution, while Labour is reluctant to lead on Johnson's Covid record = see PMQs where Rayner lead on inflation. My view: this makes sense for Johnson as his immediate task is to stop his MPs sending letters to the Chair of the 1922 Committee. This constituency is very anti-lockdown measures. I doubt the public at large, which is a lot more cautious, will be particularly impressed, but as I say, they are less immediately important.
It was 46 seconds edited from a 4 minute reply. Just listened to it on Times Radio.
I wonder what the F1 circus is thinking, looking at everything going on with the tennis players. There’s only a couple of hundred tennis players, against a couple of thousand who travel with F1.
Hope PB's F1 fans are OK with so many races last season being held in what Freedom House terms Not Free countries. Let's see now:
How’s about USA, UK, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Canada, not to mention the Australians who turned their country back into a prison island last year?
All except Mexico are regarded as Free Countries per Freedom House, though the USA is actually rated the lowest (83/100) out of the Free countries. Mexico is regarded as "Partly Free" (61/100).
The problem is they wouldn't notice any VAT cut. It just knocks 5% off whatever the new charges would be so they are 25-35% higher rather than 30-40% higher.
No sane politician is going to cut a tax like that as there is no electoral benefit from doing so.
Especially since it most benefits the better-off in their large houses, and would cost a fortune to the Treasury. It's a completely daft idea on all counts, so, on past Boris U-turn form, I expect it will happen.
A sane politician would be trying to target help at those who most need it.
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
VAT on fuel does seem like an unlikely hill for the PM to want to die on. Scrapping it was a key part of the Brexit campaign, and is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the price increases coming down the line. Middle England is really going to notice the price increases, a month before the local elections.
The problem is they wouldn't notice any VAT cut. It just knocks 5% off whatever the new charges would be so they are 25-35% higher rather than 30-40% higher.
No sane politician is going to cut a tax like that as there is no electoral benefit from doing so.
You’re right, from an economic perspective.
But from a political perspective, it looks like the government are profiteering from additional VAT on the bills going up.
There’s also the background of the government’s price cap, which is the actual cause of the forthcoming jump in bills. Left to the markets, it’s something that would have happened organically over time as contracts were renegotiated.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
If the accused had committed the offense then the verdict should have been guilty. It is up to the judge in sentencing to apply any mitigating circumstances.
yes I doubt if anyone of the "alleged" statue tearer downers had been found guilty they would have anything other than a fine which is ok as it should be up to the judge to decide the punishment and the jury to decide if they were guilty of breaking the law - For better or worse parliament decides what is the law ,not juries or the police for that matter.
Parliament determines the law it does not and should not determine convictions or acquittals.
For very good reason a jury of your peers determines that.
It's quite abhorrent to see people objecting to a juries role in the process. It's not a mistake, it's a vital safeguard!
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
The Djokovic/Australia saga has dragged on so long I sort of expect them to still be arguing as to whether he's allowed in the country or not 5 minutes before he is due to be on Rod Laver for his opening match of the tournament.
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
If the accused had committed the offense then the verdict should have been guilty. It is up to the judge in sentencing to apply any mitigating circumstances.
Yes, well I was one of the two minority jurors.
It was however pretty obvious that it was the parents of the ‘victims’ who had managed to get the case to court, with the youths themselves strongly wishing they were somewhere else.
The two best moments for me were the following quotes, as best I remember them, from fellow jurors:
“You can’t trust anything he says, he’s a policeman”
“I know that family, they’re all wrong-uns”
It was in East London and a learning experience for me. If nothing else, it confirmed that ‘Twelve Angry Men’ (which surely should have been named ‘Eleven…’?) was pure fiction.
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
He's not being forced to have an intrusive injection - he doesn't have to defend his Australian Open title.
Australia has simply adopted a policy of limiting infection by having quite strict border controls. You can agree or disagree with that, but it isn't forcing people to have a needle in their arm. People don't have to go to Australia.
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
Drifting in the betting. Voided for a no-show so I guess the view is this will hamper his performance if he plays. Not sure myself. He has a tendency to feed off crowd hostility on the court. Some off his greatest wins have come against Rog with virtually everybody rooting loudly against him.
I fear not. It's opening up a hornet's nest. Are people now to be allowed to desecrate public monuments as they choose? Or will it be a matter of you having to defend yourself in court each time - in front of an expensive jury? What about Gladstone? A building named after him was re-named by Liverpool university because of his family's links to slavery. Would his statues be fair game? Where do you draw the line? We have a statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff. Some Tories (who he called vermin) or anti-NHS libertarians might find that offensive. Should someone be allowed to tear it down? Their defence was party based on the council's refusal to take the statue down. So in other words democracy failed them and so they took matters into their own hands. The trouble is that people on the right will absorb the same message and I'd don't think the 'woke' will like the consequences.
Or perhaps they will actually. Maybe they want a threatening vigilante gang of fascists to deal with. I do sometimes get a sense of disappointment from some of the true hardcore that they don't have the kind of enemy antifa and BLM face in the US. Farage is a bit of a wet rag deserving of nothing more than milkshake.
More broadly why was this in front of a jury anyway? I thought jury trials were restricted due to all the funding issues with the court system? What was the maximum sentence they potentially faced? Justice is dispensed rather arbitrarily on a day to day basis but clearly only the best will do for four middle class white people - Sage, Milo, Rhian and Jake. Maybe the people who run our criminal justice system look upon them as the sort of people who could be their own children. How horrifying would it be for them to be caught in such a thing purely because of their well-intentioned anti-racist principles. I'd be happy for the better informed to correct me but that is how it looks to the outsider.
Huffle, puffle. The right to jury trial is a right, it isn't arbitrarily handed out to rich whiteys like a private education.
Juries aren't "expensive"; you can be legally represented or not, just as in a mags court
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
I'd be astonished if the ultra cautious approach didn't continue. It seems to have done the Welsh Government's popularity no harm, after all. One gains a strong impression that Wales would've gone into a Dutch-style panic lockdown before Christmas, were it not for the fact that Rishi Sunak holds the purse strings.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
Do you think this is being unconsciously referenced, I wonder?
“ He even advised fellow artist, John Everett Millais, who was travelling to the region to grow a beard to make himself less desirable to local men.” 😂
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
The State want to let him in for their tournament, the Federal government want to see the evidence as to why he is allowed an exemption.
Dame Helen Mirren has been criticised after she was cast as Israel's former prime minister Golda Meir despite not being Jewish.
Actress Dame Maureen Lipman said Dame Helen should not have been asked to play the Israeli leader, adding that she was uncomfortable with the casting.
A publicity image of the film Golda, where Dame Helen portrayed Ms Meir during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, showed Dame Helen covered in prosthetic to look more like the politician.
Dame Maureen told the Jewish Chronicle: 'The Jewishness of the character is so integral. I'm sure she will be marvellous, but it would never be allowed for Ben Kingsley to play Nelson Mandela. You just couldn't even go there.'
I wonder what the F1 circus is thinking, looking at everything going on with the tennis players. There’s only a couple of hundred tennis players, against a couple of thousand who travel with F1.
Hope PB's F1 fans are OK with so many races last season being held in what Freedom House terms Not Free countries. Let's see now:
How’s about USA, UK, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Canada, not to mention the Australians who turned their country back into a prison island last year?
All except Mexico are regarded as Free Countries per Freedom House, though the USA is actually rated the lowest (83/100) out of the Free countries. Mexico is regarded as "Partly Free" (61/100).
Of course, these ratings/reports will be updated for events during 2021 in the coming year.
Can't QUITE see your beloved Dubai entering the ranks of the Free Nations...
Had quite an amusing programme on BBC2 on Monday night, Inside Dubai: Playground of the Rich. Half the books in the country seem to be autobiographies and self help manuals by the Sheikh, who is one of the few absolute monarchs left in the world today
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Has the criminal justice system gone woke?
I think, on balance, if I were on that jury I would have been very tempted to acquit. The reason being, that these are four young people who will likely make a good contribution to society and I think that a criminal conviction on what was for them a matter of conscious objection to the statue would – on balance – have been the worse of two wrongs.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
I sat on a jury case like that. A relatively harmless (in terms of outcomes) punch up between some youngsters where one side had managed to get the other into court on a charge. Judged on the facts, the accused had committed the offence, but so, it appeared, had some at least of the accusers. Most of the jury were unwilling to convict in such circumstances and the majorty verdict was an acquittal.
If the accused had committed the offense then the verdict should have been guilty. It is up to the judge in sentencing to apply any mitigating circumstances.
yes I doubt if anyone of the "alleged" statue tearer downers had been found guilty they would have anything other than a fine which is ok as it should be up to the judge to decide the punishment and the jury to decide if they were guilty of breaking the law - For better or worse parliament decides what is the law ,not juries or the police for that matter.
But Parliament has decided people should have the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, with that panel chosen at random and deliberating in private. It quite simply IS open to them to say "we don't want this person to have this on their record and aren't going to convict". It's a deliberate feature of the system, not a bug.
The problem is they wouldn't notice any VAT cut. It just knocks 5% off whatever the new charges would be so they are 25-35% higher rather than 30-40% higher.
No sane politician is going to cut a tax like that as there is no electoral benefit from doing so.
Especially since it most benefits the better-off in their large houses, and would cost a fortune to the Treasury. It's a completely daft idea on all counts, so, on past Boris U-turn form, I expect it will happen.
A sane politician would be trying to target help at those who most need it.
The problem for Boris is that it was promised as a benefit of Brexit so without removing it what can he show for Brexit.
The issue is that he can't remove it when there is zero gain from doing so.
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
He is entering the most lockdown city in Australia ( Melbourne) and the public are furious
I would expect he would be booed as soon as he stepped on the court until he left throughout the tournaments
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
Good enough for him, he knows the rules, deport the criminal.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
Do you think this is being unconsciously referenced, I wonder?
“ He even advised fellow artist, John Everett Millais, who was travelling to the region to grow a beard to make himself less desirable to local men.” 😂
Millais should have painted the divine Angela, and given her some hairdressing tips
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
He is entering the most lockdown city in Australia ( Melbourne) and the public are furious
I would expect he would be booed as soon as he stepped on the court until he left throughout the tournaments
If that happens ,it will be ironically by people who are happy to mingle in large crowds by definition. The world has gone mad if it comes to picking on somebody for not wanting (for whatever ) reason an injection .
Four protesters have been found not guilty of causing criminal damage after toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest.
A jury at Bristol Crown Court cleared Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, Sage Willoughby, 22 and Milo Ponsford, 26, of charges, following a trial that lasted two weeks.
How does criminal damage not end up as a summary trial in front of magistrates?
Perhaps it's because had they been convicted they'd have received lengthy custodial sentences.
The thing about this case is the egregious neglect and intransigence of Bristol Council. Not just the statue, but the Colston Hall, Colston School etc. were just insults to a richly multi-cultural city. They did nothing for years, and the George Floyd case was the just trigger for people to finally take matters into their own hands. That statue should have come down decades ago.
The George Floyd case has almost no relevance to the UK in my opinion.
The George Floyd case was an example of US police brutality against Black people. That has its roots in systematic, institutionalised racism in American society. That in turn has its roots in slavery. Slavery was brought to America and the West Indies by the British. And specifically by men like Colston who controlled and enriched themselves from the slave trade. I don't think it takes too much effort to see that the two things are intrinsically linked.
David Lloyd is close to being confirmed as a commentator for Talksport radio after ending his 22-year role with Sky Sports following “closet racist” accusations raised by Azeem Rafiq.
Industry sources say the News Corp-owned station swooped for "Bumble" after he announced last month that "the time is now right" to move on. His departure from Sky came four weeks after the broadcaster confirmed it was investigating Rafiq's claims.
Rafiq has privately offered the former England head coach his sympathy over his departure, with friends of the former Yorkshire spinner insisting "he had not intended for this to happen".
Talksport recently expanded its international cricket coverage to air India’s Test series against New Zealand and will see the signing of the 74-year-old as a coup. For Sky, Lloyd had been a popular fixture in the commentary box for England Test and one-day matches since 1999, and played a key role in the launch of Twenty20 cricket.
Fallout from the Rafiq furore, meanwhile, will intensify again this month when the England and Wales Cricket Board face criticism from MPs shortly after the fifth Ashes Test is over.
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is understood to be close to finalising its report sparked by failures around Rafiq investigations last year. Subject to final inquiries with key county executives, the cross-party parliamentary group is likely to publish full findings by January 20, Telegraph Sport understands.
The ECB and Yorkshire are expected to face the most severe criticism, but other counties are also expected to be scrutinised after Rafiq's evidence prompted other players to come forward.
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
Well the guy has banned parkrun - a healthy outdoor activity so probably
There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
What's sauce for the goose ...
And that's the slippery slope....
It’s funny, because I thought the same, immediately after the case I sat on as mentioned above. It seemed a nonsense that the jury was so unwilling to face the logical question of whether the alleged offence had been committed or not, and spent most of its deliberations discussing matters that I thought were off topic, bringing in lots of anecdotes from their own lives of little if any relevance to the case.
But I was young at the time. With hindsight I can see the safeguards that such an apparently irrational process gives all of us, and objectively the outcome for the groups of youths involved was probably the best one - they all got put through the wringer without the long term consequences for their futures that an assault conviction would have given them.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
I'd be astonished if the ultra cautious approach didn't continue. It seems to have done the Welsh Government's popularity no harm, after all. One gains a strong impression that Wales would've gone into a Dutch-style panic lockdown before Christmas, were it not for the fact that Rishi Sunak holds the purse strings.
Without a shadow of a doubt you are spot on. It would be have been March 2020 all over again if they could have financed it. I don't think there is any chance of this nonsense being lifted until late Spring in Wales. If anything, the WRU threats will just encourage Drakeford to double down.
You are also right about general popularity, but my sense is amongst many sports fans at least the tolerance for this OTT show of difference with England has gone.
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
He is entering the most lockdown city in Australia ( Melbourne) and the public are furious
I would expect he would be booed as soon as he stepped on the court until he left throughout the tournaments
That wouldn't really be fair. Any anger should be directed towards their own authorities. He'll only be playing with their permission.
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
I think rather that World No 1 tennis player naturally assumed rules don't apply to him and the pols weren't going to disabuse him of that notion until the public outrage happened.
I fear not. It's opening up a hornet's nest. Are people now to be allowed to desecrate public monuments as they choose? Or will it be a matter of you having to defend yourself in court each time - in front of an expensive jury? What about Gladstone? A building named after him was re-named by Liverpool university because of his family's links to slavery. Would his statues be fair game? Where do you draw the line? We have a statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff. Some Tories (who he called vermin) or anti-NHS libertarians might find that offensive. Should someone be allowed to tear it down? Their defence was party based on the council's refusal to take the statue down. So in other words democracy failed them and so they took matters into their own hands. The trouble is that people on the right will absorb the same message and I'd don't think the 'woke' will like the consequences.
Or perhaps they will actually. Maybe they want a threatening vigilante gang of fascists to deal with. I do sometimes get a sense of disappointment from some of the true hardcore that they don't have the kind of enemy antifa and BLM face in the US. Farage is a bit of a wet rag deserving of nothing more than milkshake.
More broadly why was this in front of a jury anyway? I thought jury trials were restricted due to all the funding issues with the court system? What was the maximum sentence they potentially faced? Justice is dispensed rather arbitrarily on a day to day basis but clearly only the best will do for four middle class white people - Sage, Milo, Rhian and Jake. Maybe the people who run our criminal justice system look upon them as the sort of people who could be their own children. How horrifying would it be for them to be caught in such a thing purely because of their well-intentioned anti-racist principles. I'd be happy for the better informed to correct me but that is how it looks to the outsider.
For criminal damage there's a threshold - it used to be about £28k - above which you get a proper jury trial because the potential sentences are more severe. I know that for anti-arms trade/nuclear weapons activists part of the effort would be to ensure that they caused enough criminal damage to get above the threshold, so that they would be able to make their arguments in front of a jury.
I wouldn't worry too much about this being a free pass for any public monument to be defaced. The jury weren't willing to convict to protect a statue of a slaver. We can be confident that they would convict someone who dropped the statue of Churchill into the Thames. Between these two extremes there is a whole bunch of grey area, which is a reasonable arena for public debate.
In terms of there being jury nullification that the Left won't be happy about, I'd argue that exists already in rape trials, where juries are generally very receptive to a whole bunch of bogus arguments from the defence about the behaviour of the complainant, and as a result the CPS are unwilling to bring most rape cases to trial. Where this happens the solution is not to do away with juries, but to do the hard work of changing the minds of the general public. To win the public debate.
So it is with statues. If you want juries to convict people who damage the statues of slavers then you have to make the case for why we should have statues of slavers. Personally I was content to keep such statues, as evidence of the past acceptability of slaving. The jury disagrees. The horror of a free society...
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
If he does that, the WRU are going to want to be paid out by Drakeford, for the money they would have made selling a couple of hundred thousand tickets. £20m or so should cover it.
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
He is entering the most lockdown city in Australia ( Melbourne) and the public are furious
I would expect he would be booed as soon as he stepped on the court until he left throughout the tournaments
That wouldn't really be fair. Any anger should be directed towards their own authorities. He'll only be playing with their permission.
It is seen as one rule for the rich one for the rest of us
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
If he does that, the WRU are going to want to be paid out by Drakeford, for the money they would have made selling a couple of hundred thousand tickets. £20m or so should cover it.
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
Nonsense, the sheep botherers used to play their matches at Wembley, bloody bastards denied England the title in 1999.
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
If he does that, the WRU are going to want to be paid out by Drakeford, for the money they would have made selling a couple of hundred thousand tickets. £20m or so should cover it.
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
Yes, yes he will.
The WRU of course have the option to take games across the border. If they do I look forward to another lecture on "it's not what you can do but what you should do" from the First Minister.
Interesting though that Welsh Government have followed England in changing PCR testing rules today. I see they claim it will mean a 5-15% reduction in demand for PCR. Try 80% I'd suggest. Case numbers are clearly going to fall through the floor as no-one will bother registering positive LFTs even if they bother takig them and maybe that might provoke public demand to change course.
I note that all government's claim that this is a temporary move on requirement for PCR. Nonsense, the rules won't change back in my view.
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
If he does that, the WRU are going to want to be paid out by Drakeford, for the money they would have made selling a couple of hundred thousand tickets. £20m or so should cover it.
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
Nonsense, the sheep botherers used to play their matches at Wembley, bloody bastards denied England the title in 1999.
Ha yes, remember that one well.
It’s going to be amusing to watch this one play out from afar, as @3ChordTrick notes above, one gets the feeling that sports fans in the devolved administrations might be about to get rather upset at their leaders playing the differentiation game with restrictions.
Dame Helen Mirren has been criticised after she was cast as Israel's former prime minister Golda Meir despite not being Jewish.
Actress Dame Maureen Lipman said Dame Helen should not have been asked to play the Israeli leader, adding that she was uncomfortable with the casting.
A publicity image of the film Golda, where Dame Helen portrayed Ms Meir during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, showed Dame Helen covered in prosthetic to look more like the politician.
Dame Maureen told the Jewish Chronicle: 'The Jewishness of the character is so integral. I'm sure she will be marvellous, but it would never be allowed for Ben Kingsley to play Nelson Mandela. You just couldn't even go there.'
I absolutely don't think it should be a problem, and her specific hypothetical example is a bit silly, but she's not against the spirit of the times in making that complaint and questioning its application or non application.
I'm slightly surprised that Cleopatra movie being made managed to (rightly) hold firm against criticisms of the ilk that an actor does not perfectly match the subject.
I'm personally not sure which side I'd have been on regarding this case. Maybe they've got lucky and been given a pass they shouldn't have been given, maybe not.
BUT... I am a hell of a lot happier that they had the opportunity to have that heard by a dozen local people chosen at random than a battle hardened district judge. Importantly, I am more willing to accept a decision I DON'T like from a jury.
The Djokovic situation is odd. He seemingly had a FEDERAL? (Oz?) medical exemption (Lord knows what it was) but now the STATE (Vicky) Gov't wants him to prove it ?
Have I got that correct ?
I think rather that World No 1 tennis player naturally assumed rules don't apply to him and the pols weren't going to disabuse him of that notion until the public outrage happened.
Reminds a bit of when Williams through a temper tantrum at a tournament but complained bitterly about criticism of it.
The Welsh Rugby Union is considering playing home Six Nations games in England because of crowd restrictions in Wales
Would be fantastic. Let's do it. Posted about this earlier.
The WRU are caught between a rock and a hard place. Finances are not in a great shape and they would be banking £13.5m from the 3 home games.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
Is Drakeford really going to insist that the games are staged in Wales inside an empty stadium? That seems bonkers.
If he does that, the WRU are going to want to be paid out by Drakeford, for the money they would have made selling a couple of hundred thousand tickets. £20m or so should cover it.
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
Nonsense, the sheep botherers used to play their matches at Wembley, bloody bastards denied England the title in 1999.
And what a day that was. Scott Gibbs what a hero. ;-)
I fear not. It's opening up a hornet's nest. Are people now to be allowed to desecrate public monuments as they choose? Or will it be a matter of you having to defend yourself in court each time - in front of an expensive jury? What about Gladstone? A building named after him was re-named by Liverpool university because of his family's links to slavery. Would his statues be fair game? Where do you draw the line? We have a statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff. Some Tories (who he called vermin) or anti-NHS libertarians might find that offensive. Should someone be allowed to tear it down? Their defence was party based on the council's refusal to take the statue down. So in other words democracy failed them and so they took matters into their own hands. The trouble is that people on the right will absorb the same message and I'd don't think the 'woke' will like the consequences.
Or perhaps they will actually. Maybe they want a threatening vigilante gang of fascists to deal with. I do sometimes get a sense of disappointment from some of the true hardcore that they don't have the kind of enemy antifa and BLM face in the US. Farage is a bit of a wet rag deserving of nothing more than milkshake.
More broadly why was this in front of a jury anyway? I thought jury trials were restricted due to all the funding issues with the court system? What was the maximum sentence they potentially faced? Justice is dispensed rather arbitrarily on a day to day basis but clearly only the best will do for four middle class white people - Sage, Milo, Rhian and Jake. Maybe the people who run our criminal justice system look upon them as the sort of people who could be their own children. How horrifying would it be for them to be caught in such a thing purely because of their well-intentioned anti-racist principles. I'd be happy for the better informed to correct me but that is how it looks to the outsider.
For criminal damage there's a threshold - it used to be about £28k - above which you get a proper jury trial because the potential sentences are more severe. I know that for anti-arms trade/nuclear weapons activists part of the effort would be to ensure that they caused enough criminal damage to get above the threshold, so that they would be able to make their arguments in front of a jury.
I wouldn't worry too much about this being a free pass for any public monument to be defaced. The jury weren't willing to convict to protect a statue of a slaver. We can be confident that they would convict someone who dropped the statue of Churchill into the Thames. Between these two extremes there is a whole bunch of grey area, which is a reasonable arena for public debate.
In terms of there being jury nullification that the Left won't be happy about, I'd argue that exists already in rape trials, where juries are generally very receptive to a whole bunch of bogus arguments from the defence about the behaviour of the complainant, and as a result the CPS are unwilling to bring most rape cases to trial. Where this happens the solution is not to do away with juries, but to do the hard work of changing the minds of the general public. To win the public debate.
So it is with statues. If you want juries to convict people who damage the statues of slavers then you have to make the case for why we should have statues of slavers. Personally I was content to keep such statues, as evidence of the past acceptability of slaving. The jury disagrees. The horror of a free society...
The jury disagrees? Would they have needed a unanimous verdict?
Let's imagine a future situation. Someone has pulled down the statue of Nelson Mandela in parliament square. The person has previous links to various 'far right' groups. His defence is that Mandela was a terrorist in his youth and he was offended by such a statue. It goes to a jury most of whom are happy to convict. But one person on the jury, let's call her Karen, doesn't want to convict. Although the law breaking seems obvious she feels he was making a sincere point against terrorism and that we should not be lauding Mandela with a statue. So the jury acquits.
I fear we are going down the route of the US with a more politicised justice system. We won't like the results.
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
So principled that his medical exemption seems a bit... interesting.
The number of other players that have such "medical exemptions" suggest that either severe conditions are endemic in high end tennis, or some doctors are liars.
Given that the Australian authorities have started looking at this we are going to be seeing some fun over the next few days.
Comments
LSHTM optimistic scenario was 2k admissions/day in England, which we have already surpassed.
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2021/modelling-potential-impact-omicron-england
Yes it’s annoying when it happens, but it’s one of the checks and balances in the system, and is better than all of the alternatives.
Our system in general does not forbid or prevent this happening. It can be a useful safety valve against arbitrary government or in special cases.
I suggest we adopt a policy of 'take a LF test as soon as symptoms stop, and again daily, and come back to work as soon as you have a negative one'
You may get a few false negative, and consequently the occasional additional transition, but this will be minor compared to the benefit of having a lot of staff back sooner.
Sure, someone should do a proper evaluation, without cherry-picking data to get a predefined answer, on what could be done to better support decision making in the future, but it's a lot of work to do a worthwhile job on that. And I suspect the answer will simply be that the uncertainties were very large.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/01/04/exclusive-six-nations-preparing-behind-closed-doors-matches/
It has always been the case that defendants can demand, in such cases, to go to jury trial at the Crown Court. The risk is that the sentence can be more than six months in prison if found guilty, and it's a more drawn out process, but generally you have a higher chance of acquittal.
The prosecution can also push an either way case to the Crown Court if they want to seek a sentence over six months, but I strongly suspect this particular one would have been at the instigation of the defence as the facts aren't really in dispute and it's just a question of the defendant's motives. It's part of the point of a jury trial - a panel of your peers is simply more likely to say "We're sympathetic and have a sense it wouldn't be fair to convict" or at least have enough of those to avoid conviction. A magistrate, as a professional, is more likely to say "I'm sympathetic but this is the law".
Assuming I had the means to pay for my representation, which most people really don’t.
Juries can only nullify by acquitting if they think it's justified. They can't convict where the law doesn't permit it (and if they do that can be appealled).
We could abolish juries and get rid of this in one stroke, but we don't for good reason.
I don't think they should have done what they did, but given that the choice was only between their having a criminal conviction for life or acquittal, I probably would have acquitted. I don't know. But that's my guess.
Now I understand that many would disagree. Which is valid. That is what makes it an interesting case.
Bahrain - Not Free
Azerbaijan - Not Free
Russia - Not Free
Turkey - Not Free
Qatar - Not Free
Saudi - Not Free
Abu Dhabi - Not Free
It should be said such cases are rare, though. A criminal damage case is far more likely to be a defendant saying "it wasn't me who chucked the brick". In such cases, you'd generally go for magistrates' court - higher chance of conviction, but lower risk of a harsh sentence, and it's all over quicker.
6 weeks of argument, repeating the same points over and over. The judge would allow them to reach a majority verdict.
No thanks. We're loving this. Expect a verdict in 2040 or someone dies. Whichever is first.
The burden to get unanimity or close to it is on the prosecution.
Twickenham (ENG)
Old Trafford (WAL)
Anfield (IRL)
St James' Park (SCO)
White Hart Lane (FRA)
Wembley (ITA)
I suspect juries would get fed up of a stream of copy cat criminal damage exponents.
You can strongly disagree with the actions of woke youth without wanting them to go to prison.
At a tangent from this, I suspect part of the low conviction rate for rape and some other sexual offences is that juries have a different view from the law of what really constitutes rape, and are deeply unwilling to see some bloke with no previous who was consensually in bed with a girl when contested stuff starts happening face a tariff with a 5 year start point.
Letting someone in who hasn't followed any of the rules (especially some famous) is political dynamite that is now being used for election point scoring.
It plays very well. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are both more popular than the UK one, and I strongly suspect that this will still be the case after all the Covid crap has been (and please let this be true) finally thrown in the dustbin later in the Spring.
No sane politician is going to cut a tax like that as there is no electoral benefit from doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1fcEbHFFkM&t=999s
On the politics of Covid, Johnson seems confident to attack Labour's perceived caution, while Labour is reluctant to lead on Johnson's Covid record = see PMQs where Rayner lead on inflation. My view: this makes sense for Johnson as his immediate task is to stop his MPs sending letters to the Chair of the 1922 Committee. This constituency is very anti-lockdown measures. I doubt the public at large, which is a lot more cautious, will be particularly impressed, but as I say, they are less immediately important.
Or perhaps they will actually. Maybe they want a threatening vigilante gang of fascists to deal with. I do sometimes get a sense of disappointment from some of the true hardcore that they don't have the kind of enemy antifa and BLM face in the US. Farage is a bit of a wet rag deserving of nothing more than milkshake.
More broadly why was this in front of a jury anyway? I thought jury trials were restricted due to all the funding issues with the court system? What was the maximum sentence they potentially faced? Justice is dispensed rather arbitrarily on a day to day basis but clearly only the best will do for four middle class white people - Sage, Milo, Rhian and Jake. Maybe the people who run our criminal justice system look upon them as the sort of people who could be their own children. How horrifying would it be for them to be caught in such a thing purely because of their well-intentioned anti-racist principles. I'd be happy for the better informed to correct me but that is how it looks to the outsider.
Canada 98/100
Australia 97/100
UK 93/100
Italy 90/100
Spain 90/100
USA 83/100
Mexico 61/100
Of course, these ratings/reports will be updated for events during 2021 in the coming year.
Can't QUITE see your beloved Dubai entering the ranks of the Free Nations...
A sane politician would be trying to target help at those who most need it.
While on the other hand, they are currently renegotiating the terms of a £20m loam from Welsh Government and will not be keen to wind Drakeford and his zealots up further.
Certainly pre Xmas they've been keen to support WG in public health measures, I don't know if that view has changed.
Anyway as someone who has tickets for all 5 of Wales games (Ireland looking unlikely unfortunately given Irish restrictions on crowds and their hospitality rules), I hope they do it and stick to fingers up to this nonsense. 4 trips to London please, including Twickenham.
Anyway, forget the WRU, the whole of the Wales will be flooded with the tears of Cardiff publicans and restaurateurs if Drakeford and his precautionary public health crusade continues and their 6 Nations bonanza is nixed again.
But from a political perspective, it looks like the government are profiteering from additional VAT on the bills going up.
There’s also the background of the government’s price cap, which is the actual cause of the forthcoming jump in bills. Left to the markets, it’s something that would have happened organically over time as contracts were renegotiated.
For very good reason a jury of your peers determines that.
It's quite abhorrent to see people objecting to a juries role in the process. It's not a mistake, it's a vital safeguard!
Have I got that correct ?
It was however pretty obvious that it was the parents of the ‘victims’ who had managed to get the case to court, with the youths themselves strongly wishing they were somewhere else.
The two best moments for me were the following quotes, as best I remember them, from fellow jurors:
“You can’t trust anything he says, he’s a policeman”
“I know that family, they’re all wrong-uns”
It was in East London and a learning experience for me. If nothing else, it confirmed that ‘Twelve Angry Men’ (which surely should have been named ‘Eleven…’?) was pure fiction.
Australia has simply adopted a policy of limiting infection by having quite strict border controls. You can agree or disagree with that, but it isn't forcing people to have a needle in their arm. People don't have to go to Australia.
Juries aren't "expensive"; you can be legally represented or not, just as in a mags court
10 years.
Actress Dame Maureen Lipman said Dame Helen should not have been asked to play the Israeli leader, adding that she was uncomfortable with the casting.
A publicity image of the film Golda, where Dame Helen portrayed Ms Meir during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, showed Dame Helen covered in prosthetic to look more like the politician.
Dame Maureen told the Jewish Chronicle: 'The Jewishness of the character is so integral. I'm sure she will be marvellous, but it would never be allowed for Ben Kingsley to play Nelson Mandela. You just couldn't even go there.'
The issue is that he can't remove it when there is zero gain from doing so.
I would expect he would be booed as soon as he stepped on the court until he left throughout the tournaments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Everett_Millais_-_Mariana_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Industry sources say the News Corp-owned station swooped for "Bumble" after he announced last month that "the time is now right" to move on. His departure from Sky came four weeks after the broadcaster confirmed it was investigating Rafiq's claims.
Rafiq has privately offered the former England head coach his sympathy over his departure, with friends of the former Yorkshire spinner insisting "he had not intended for this to happen".
Talksport recently expanded its international cricket coverage to air India’s Test series against New Zealand and will see the signing of the 74-year-old as a coup. For Sky, Lloyd had been a popular fixture in the commentary box for England Test and one-day matches since 1999, and played a key role in the launch of Twenty20 cricket.
Fallout from the Rafiq furore, meanwhile, will intensify again this month when the England and Wales Cricket Board face criticism from MPs shortly after the fifth Ashes Test is over.
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is understood to be close to finalising its report sparked by failures around Rafiq investigations last year. Subject to final inquiries with key county executives, the cross-party parliamentary group is likely to publish full findings by January 20, Telegraph Sport understands.
The ECB and Yorkshire are expected to face the most severe criticism, but other counties are also expected to be scrutinised after Rafiq's evidence prompted other players to come forward.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/01/05/david-lloyd-confirmed-commentator-talksport-departure-sky-sports/
But I was young at the time. With hindsight I can see the safeguards that such an apparently irrational process gives all of us, and objectively the outcome for the groups of youths involved was probably the best one - they all got put through the wringer without the long term consequences for their futures that an assault conviction would have given them.
You are also right about general popularity, but my sense is amongst many sports fans at least the tolerance for this OTT show of difference with England has gone.
You cannot get a better vindcstion of the notion that the people of Bristol didn't want an idol to a slave trader in their town.
I wouldn't worry too much about this being a free pass for any public monument to be defaced. The jury weren't willing to convict to protect a statue of a slaver. We can be confident that they would convict someone who dropped the statue of Churchill into the Thames. Between these two extremes there is a whole bunch of grey area, which is a reasonable arena for public debate.
In terms of there being jury nullification that the Left won't be happy about, I'd argue that exists already in rape trials, where juries are generally very receptive to a whole bunch of bogus arguments from the defence about the behaviour of the complainant, and as a result the CPS are unwilling to bring most rape cases to trial. Where this happens the solution is not to do away with juries, but to do the hard work of changing the minds of the general public. To win the public debate.
So it is with statues. If you want juries to convict people who damage the statues of slavers then you have to make the case for why we should have statues of slavers. Personally I was content to keep such statues, as evidence of the past acceptability of slaving. The jury disagrees. The horror of a free society...
Not to mention the sporting penalty of playing their ‘home’ matches with no atmosphere.
Seems familiar
The WRU of course have the option to take games across the border. If they do I look forward to another lecture on "it's not what you can do but what you should do" from the First Minister.
Interesting though that Welsh Government have followed England in changing PCR testing rules today. I see they claim it will mean a 5-15% reduction in demand for PCR. Try 80% I'd suggest. Case numbers are clearly going to fall through the floor as no-one will bother registering positive LFTs even if they bother takig them and maybe that might provoke public demand to change course.
I note that all government's claim that this is a temporary move on requirement for PCR. Nonsense, the rules won't change back in my view.
It’s going to be amusing to watch this one play out from afar, as @3ChordTrick notes above, one gets the feeling that sports fans in the devolved administrations might be about to get rather upset at their leaders playing the differentiation game with restrictions.
I'm slightly surprised that Cleopatra movie being made managed to (rightly) hold firm against criticisms of the ilk that an actor does not perfectly match the subject.
I'm personally not sure which side I'd have been on regarding this case. Maybe they've got lucky and been given a pass they shouldn't have been given, maybe not.
BUT... I am a hell of a lot happier that they had the opportunity to have that heard by a dozen local people chosen at random than a battle hardened district judge. Importantly, I am more willing to accept a decision I DON'T like from a jury.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371579/Pope-Francis-hits-selfish-couples-pets-instead-children.html
Let's imagine a future situation. Someone has pulled down the statue of Nelson Mandela in parliament square. The person has previous links to various 'far right' groups. His defence is that Mandela was a terrorist in his youth and he was offended by such a statue. It goes to a jury most of whom are happy to convict. But one person on the jury, let's call her Karen, doesn't want to convict. Although the law breaking seems obvious she feels he was making a
sincere point against terrorism and that we should not be lauding Mandela with a statue. So the jury acquits.
I fear we are going down the route of the US with a more politicised justice system. We won't like the results.
The number of other players that have such "medical exemptions" suggest that either severe conditions are endemic in high end tennis, or some doctors are liars.
Given that the Australian authorities have started looking at this we are going to be seeing some fun over the next few days.