if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
I’ve just stopped for my first beer. I somehow forgot to buy any on my way out of Banyuls this morning, so I’ve worked up quite a thirst. I’m in a little town called Port Verdres, which neighbours Collioures (where I intend to have lunch at Casa Leon!).
The weather today is the worst so far: the sky is totally overcast and it isn’t remotely warm. I’m rather pleased about this as I caught a bit too much sun while cooled by the strong wind yesterday and I need a day in the shade.
I was delighted to discover this morning on checking out that my delicious dinner last night only cost me €29. I spent nearly that on beer. The lady on reception went through my bill with me and tilted her head slightly as she checked the number of beers I’d had; I looked at her deadly serious and said “En vacances je bois comme un trou” (on holiday I drink like a hole). She laughed quite hard.
Great phrase!
I love French idiom. I’m not sure how I’ll be able to use my favourite one - il a le cul bordé de nouilles (he has an arse surrounded by noodles) which somehow means he is very lucky.
“The police have now completely shredded Johnson’s claims that no laws were broken. He cannot be trusted and cannot continue as Prime Minister. No other leader in any other organisation would be allowed to continue after law-breaking on this scale.”
Well, FIFA, the Olympics and Putin's Politburo for three. But they aren't exactly helpful to Boris' cause...
I’ve just stopped for my first beer. I somehow forgot to buy any on my way out of Banyuls this morning, so I’ve worked up quite a thirst. I’m in a little town called Port Verdres, which neighbours Collioures (where I intend to have lunch at Casa Leon!).
The weather today is the worst so far: the sky is totally overcast and it isn’t remotely warm. I’m rather pleased about this as I caught a bit too much sun while cooled by the strong wind yesterday and I need a day in the shade.
I was delighted to discover this morning on checking out that my delicious dinner last night only cost me €29. I spent nearly that on beer. The lady on reception went through my bill with me and tilted her head slightly as she checked the number of beers I’d had; I looked at her deadly serious and said “En vacances je bois comme un trou” (on holiday I drink like a hole). She laughed quite hard.
Great phrase!
I love French idiom. I’m not sure how I’ll be able to use my favourite one - il a le cul bordé de nouilles (he has an arse surrounded by noodles) which somehow means he is very lucky.
Did they coin that to describe Boris ?
Probably Mitterrand. He was a man who kept screwing up but somehow won elections when it counted.
I’ve just stopped for my first beer. I somehow forgot to buy any on my way out of Banyuls this morning, so I’ve worked up quite a thirst. I’m in a little town called Port Verdres, which neighbours Collioures (where I intend to have lunch at Casa Leon!).
The weather today is the worst so far: the sky is totally overcast and it isn’t remotely warm. I’m rather pleased about this as I caught a bit too much sun while cooled by the strong wind yesterday and I need a day in the shade.
I was delighted to discover this morning on checking out that my delicious dinner last night only cost me €29. I spent nearly that on beer. The lady on reception went through my bill with me and tilted her head slightly as she checked the number of beers I’d had; I looked at her deadly serious and said “En vacances je bois comme un trou” (on holiday I drink like a hole). She laughed quite hard.
Great phrase!
I love French idiom. I’m not sure how I’ll be able to use my favourite one - il a le cul bordé de nouilles (he has an arse surrounded by noodles) which somehow means he is very lucky.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Certainly if you've hidden your big plan from the electorate during the campaign.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
Why were students fined £10,000 for having parties and yet these guys get small FPN. That's my thought.
And how many staff are there in No 10? Is it 50? More? The kind of numbers involved points to some level of organization of these events which surely should attract more severe penalties, as in student cases.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
Its the Metropolitan Police issuing fines to Downing Street. Both of whom leak like sieves. Of course it will get leaked
And no, of course it isn't tenable. 50 fines so far for parties that Downing Street, the Big Dog and a string of cabinet ministers repeatedly said did not happen.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
He did appeal and failed. As I said I have no idea if he is guilty, my whole point is that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is not required at all to gain a conviction, even for the worst of crimes, as this case demonstrates.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
Its the Metropolitan Police issuing fines to Downing Street. Both of whom leak like sieves. Of course it will get leaked
And no, of course it isn't tenable. 50 fines so far for parties that Downing Street, the Big Dog and a string of cabinet ministers repeatedly said did not happen.
I wonder if Downing St will be told who has been fined. If I was given a fixed penalty fine I wouldn't expect my employer to be told (although it might be a requirement for me to notify them eg driving conviction if I have a company car)
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
Its the Metropolitan Police issuing fines to Downing Street. Both of whom leak like sieves. Of course it will get leaked
And no, of course it isn't tenable. 50 fines so far for parties that Downing Street, the Big Dog and a string of cabinet ministers repeatedly said did not happen.
I wonder if Downing St will be told who has been fined. If I was given a fixed penalty fine I wouldn't expect my employer to be told (although it might be a requirement for me to notify them eg driving conviction if I have a company car)
My 'fit and proper' declaration says I don't need to disclose to employers 'any road traffic offences that did not lead to disqualification or a prison sentence;.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
He did appeal and failed. As I said I have no idea if he is guilty, my whole point is that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is not required at all to gain a conviction, even for the worst of crimes, as this case demonstrates.
The judge in summing without fail tells the jury what the standard and burden of proof is. Is has to be beyond reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. The judge alone decides it there is sufficient evidence for this to be possible in law. This judgement can be appealed.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
He did appeal and failed. As I said I have no idea if he is guilty, my whole point is that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is not required at all to gain a conviction, even for the worst of crimes, as this case demonstrates.
There's also the case of David Gilroy who murdered Suzanne Pilley in the basement of their workplace in Edinburgh in 2010 and then supposedly dumped the body somewhere in Argyll (at the same time as a conjured up 'work trip') the next day. His stepmother who is former Labour MP Linda Gilroy and his family are about the only the people who think he is innocent but the circumstancial evidence in that case is utterly overwhelming and Gilroy could still be out by 2030.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
What is the usual process on this? If I break a law and am issued an FPN, normally it wouldn't be interesting enough for the press to publish it, but is there actually a rule one way or the other, or is it left to someone's discretion (if so, who?)? Does GDPR have a bearing on it?
There is clearly public interest in how widespread the FPNs were and at what level of seniority, and more generally on the thought process which has led to some people getting fines and others not. I'd think that the Met should explain the criteria that they are using - that is clearly more important than knowing that junior civil servant Joe Bloggs is being fined £200. All the public really care about is whether similar standards are applied as those applied to students and other ordinary people, and whether Johnson or other Ministers are considered to have breached those standards.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
It's interesting that this is more true in Britain than many other countries. Coalitions with tiny majorities survive for years in Germany and Scandinavia, and the Senate decisions all seem to come down to what Manchin and Sinema think. Perhaps British MPs are more bolshy, and perhaps that's a good thing.
In practice, the main weapon that a Government has is "stop messing us about or we'll call another election and ask for a proper mandate". I'd think that if Labour was the largest party and had a majority of 20 dependent on other parties, people would be open to improving on it if the other parties were seen as being unreasonably obstructive. Yes "oh, let's give them a chance" instinct is quite strong.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
What is the usual process on this? If I break a law and am issued an FPN, normally it wouldn't be interesting enough for the press to publish it, but is there actually a rule one way or the other, or is it left to someone's discretion (if so, who?)? Does GDPR have a bearing on it?
There is clearly public interest in how widespread the FPNs were and at what level of seniority, and more generally on the thought process which has led to some people getting fines and others not. I'd think that the Met should explain the criteria that they are using - that is clearly more important than knowing that junior civil servant Joe Bloggs is being fined £200. All the public really care about is whether similar standards are applied as those applied to students and other ordinary people, and whether Johnson or other Ministers are considered to have breached those standards.
I believe those receiving FPNs are not normally named publicly. COVID FPNs can be issued on the basis that a police officer believes you have broken the law. With Partygate, unusually, it appears the Police have involved the CPS in the decisions.
If someone were to refuse to pay an FPN, the Police could back down, or they could refer the case to the Courts, at which point it would all go public.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
Though had Cameron not offered an EU referendum to try and minimise the UKIP surge, then Brexit might not have happened at all
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
It's interesting that this is more true in Britain than many other countries. Coalitions with tiny majorities survive for years in Germany and Scandinavia, and the Senate decisions all seem to come down to what Manchin and Sinema think. Perhaps British MPs are more bolshy, and perhaps that's a good thing.
In practice, the main weapon that a Government has is "stop messing us about or we'll call another election and ask for a proper mandate". I'd think that if Labour was the largest party and had a majority of 20 dependent on other parties, people would be open to improving on it if the other parties were seen as being unreasonably obstructive. Yes "oh, let's give them a chance" instinct is quite strong.
Vide Oct '74.Although it wasn't much of as majority.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
He did appeal and failed. As I said I have no idea if he is guilty, my whole point is that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is not required at all to gain a conviction, even for the worst of crimes, as this case demonstrates.
For goodness sake don't listen to The Beyond Reasonable Doubt podcast (about Michael Peters) it will have you spitting feathers.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
Inclined to agree, but with one caveat. If 10 junior staff were fined and no-one at the top I'd smell a very big rat. Especially in such a small workplace and force.
The Quaker funeral (see page 1) was 'different', and unlike the one I went to on Saturday, there was no alcohol afterwards.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
Betting Warning. There is a lot of polling go in on for this second round, for the sake of your betting hangover, don’t mix your grain with your hop - follow trend within company not between them.
I have analysed it this morning, and the companies who have given Le Pen her highest second round scores have more recent polls lower, I see clear drift away from Le Pen, and Macron is my favoured bet to win this.
Still quite a variation in the run off polls from 55 to 45 to Macron to 52.5 v 47.5.
Macron has indicated that he’s willing to make some changes to his pension reforms in an effort to shore up more left wing support .
So will be interesting to see what these are and what effect they might have on the polls.
If that were the difference between 67.5 and 65, we'd call it MOE. We should do the same here, it's just that the small margin makes a bigger difference.
We probably wouldn't if the 2.5 point margin was repeated in lots of polls. My statistics training is too long ago to be dogmatic (others will know more, I'm sure), but MOE shrinks rapidly if you keep getting the same result in independent studies.
If the second round was tomorrow, Macron would IMO be very safe. But he does need to get through the debate with Le Pen in one piece.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
Though had Cameron not offered an EU referendum to try and minimise the UKIP surge, then Brexit might not have happened at all
That pressure cooker was going to blow regardless.
Now, if Cameron hadn't come back with a truly shite "renegotiation", then tried to sell it as something wonderful, then had a flounce at "little Englanders" when they laughed at it - then Brexit might not have happened at all.
It will studied for decades as How To Fuck-up A Negotiation 1.1.
A man goes into a carpet bazaar. "My man, I badly need a carpet. And this is how much money I have..." He proffers a large bundle of notes to the carpet seller - who goes into the back, to retrieve the most mouldy, moth-eaten thing he owns.... "Sorry, this is all you can afford.....", barely unable to restrain a grin.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
Inclined to agree, but with one caveat. If 10 junior staff were fined and no-one at the top I'd smell a very big rat. Especially in such a small workplace and force.
The Quaker funeral (see page 1) was 'different', and unlike the one I went to on Saturday, there was no alcohol afterwards.
I have only ever been to one Quaker funeral (my daughter went to a Friends' School). It was very moving and graceful. Lots of silence.
The more they move there, the more it isn't in Ukraine.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
True, though if Finland and Sweden make an application to join NATO and Russia then attacks Finland and Sweden before their NATO membership is confirmed, that would still not technically be an attack on a NATO member state
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
Inclined to agree, but with one caveat. If 10 junior staff were fined and no-one at the top I'd smell a very big rat. Especially in such a small workplace and force.
The Quaker funeral (see page 1) was 'different', and unlike the one I went to on Saturday, there was no alcohol afterwards.
I have only ever been to one Quaker funeral (my daughter went to a Friends' School). It was very moving and graceful. Lots of silence.
There was. And some very moving remarks. Certainly more appropriate than some 'eulogies' I have heard from priests who have gained their info from grieving relatives.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
What is the usual process on this? If I break a law and am issued an FPN, normally it wouldn't be interesting enough for the press to publish it, but is there actually a rule one way or the other, or is it left to someone's discretion (if so, who?)? Does GDPR have a bearing on it?
There is clearly public interest in how widespread the FPNs were and at what level of seniority, and more generally on the thought process which has led to some people getting fines and others not. I'd think that the Met should explain the criteria that they are using - that is clearly more important than knowing that junior civil servant Joe Bloggs is being fined £200. All the public really care about is whether similar standards are applied as those applied to students and other ordinary people, and whether Johnson or other Ministers are considered to have breached those standards.
Alas, gone are the days when the local paper would be padded out with the price of lambs and a long list of all the miscreants fined 10/- for parking in the wrong place.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
What is the usual process on this? If I break a law and am issued an FPN, normally it wouldn't be interesting enough for the press to publish it, but is there actually a rule one way or the other, or is it left to someone's discretion (if so, who?)? Does GDPR have a bearing on it?
There is clearly public interest in how widespread the FPNs were and at what level of seniority, and more generally on the thought process which has led to some people getting fines and others not. I'd think that the Met should explain the criteria that they are using - that is clearly more important than knowing that junior civil servant Joe Bloggs is being fined £200. All the public really care about is whether similar standards are applied as those applied to students and other ordinary people, and whether Johnson or other Ministers are considered to have breached those standards.
Alas, gone are the days when the local paper would be padded out with the price of lambs and a long list of all the miscreants fined 10/- for parking in the wrong place.
Where I lived fines for unlicensed dogs was a big thing.
Betting Warning. There is a lot of polling go in on for this second round, for the sake of your betting hangover, don’t mix your grain with your hop - follow trend within company not between them.
I have analysed it this morning, and the companies who have given Le Pen her highest second round scores have more recent polls lower, I see clear drift away from Le Pen, and Macron is my favoured bet to win this.
Weren't you tipping Macron to even make the final two?
“The police have now completely shredded Johnson’s claims that no laws were broken. He cannot be trusted and cannot continue as Prime Minister. No other leader in any other organisation would be allowed to continue after law-breaking on this scale.”
Well, FIFA, the Olympics and Putin's Politburo for three. But they aren't exactly helpful to Boris' cause...
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
I don't know this case, but the assertion that "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against" is just factually wrong.
If this were the case then the judge must have made a ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there WAS a case to answer and must give reasons in open court. This judgement can be appealed.
A cursory Google shows that this case was appealed, that the single judge said no, that the appellant didn't take it to an oral hearing for leave to appeal, and the the CCRC has rejected the case.
In this case he was found guilty for three reasons.
1. He was having an affair with the victim 2. There was a very poor CCTV image of a car that may have been Kearneys in an area and at a time the murder may have happened. When I say poor it was just an outline, no registration, colour or anything else could be seen. 3. CCTV images showed Kearney acting "strange" when he went to work as a postman in the hours after the murder. The definition of acting strange was coming in a different entrance and running back to his car to get his glasses.
That is it, how do you appeal that? The CCRC require you to produce new evidence to contradict what you were found guilty on.
As mentioned there was no forensic evidence against him. Below the victims body in the boot of her car there was a thumb print in blood on a tesco bag which was not hers or Kearneys. Unfortunately the police have thrown this evidence away.
Kearney will never admit his guilt, hence he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Ignore the CCRC process for a moment. That's all for later stages. The normal appeal process allows an appeal to the CA (CD) on the simple basis that there was insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution case for a properly directed jury to find the defendant guilty. You say there wasn't; the judge and the single judge of the Court of Appeal must have concluded there was. IIRC the defence took that appeal no further to the full court though they could have done.
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
He did appeal and failed. As I said I have no idea if he is guilty, my whole point is that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is not required at all to gain a conviction, even for the worst of crimes, as this case demonstrates.
The judge in summing without fail tells the jury what the standard and burden of proof is. Is has to be beyond reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. The judge alone decides it there is sufficient evidence for this to be possible in law. This judgement can be appealed.
Whilst the judge does instruct the jury on the need for the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (although they no longer use that term - it has been replaced by telling the jury they have to be sure), those who have actually served on juries often find the reality is different. In the jury room, balance of probability is often used. Indeed, some jurors will vote for conviction because they don't like the look of the defendant.
In deciding whether to put a case to the jury, the judge essentially takes the prosecution case at its highest and the defence case at its lowest. In the Kearney case, for example, if the judge decided that the strength of the prosecution case depended on the weight the jury atttached to the CCTV evidence, the case must be put to the jury regardless of the judge's view of that evidence.
It is, as an earlier poster said, wrong to say that, "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against". He doesn't need prosecution evidence to appeal against. That isn't how it works. He needs to either show that the trial was legally flawed (given the length of time that has passed, I presume it wasn't), or that he has new evidence. Finding new evidence is his big problem, combined with the reluctance of the courts to overturn convictions. The Court of Appeal still issues judgements in which they perform mental gymnastics to justify upholding a conviction that should clearly be overturned. In the Horizon scandal, for example, evidence of the cases so far is that all Post Office has to do is oppose an appeal and say that the conviction was not Horizon related and the Court of Appeal will uphold the conviction.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
Though had Cameron not offered an EU referendum to try and minimise the UKIP surge, then Brexit might not have happened at all
That pressure cooker was going to blow regardless.
Now, if Cameron hadn't come back with a truly shite "renegotiation", then tried to sell it as something wonderful, then had a flounce at "little Englanders" when they laughed at it - then Brexit might not have happened at all.
It will studied for decades as How To Fuck-up A Negotiation 1.1.
A man goes into a carpet bazaar. "My man, I badly need a carpet. And this is how much money I have..." He proffers a large bundle of notes to the carpet seller - who goes into the back, to retrieve the most mouldy, moth-eaten thing he owns.... "Sorry, this is all you can afford.....", barely unable to restrain a grin.
The pressure cooker was going to blow for reasons going back decades. Going further into a shared sovereignty, external law making and FoM without whole hearted consent and multiple referendums was bound to blow up sometime. Policies as sensible as James II 1685-1688 were enacted wholesale from Heath to Cameron inclusive.
It is a particular disaster because having failed to consult and get real agreement from people we ended up with no possible good outcome. And here we are.
I don't think I'll be able to watch Under Siege again in the same way again.
The former Hollywood action star Steven Seagal has declared his support for his friend and “great world leader” President Putin.
The Under Siege and Hard to Kill actor attended a feast to celebrate his 70th birthday at a Moscow restaurant on Sunday, and was joined by several allies of the Russian president who are subject to western sanctions.
They included the editor-in-chief of the state-funded broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, and Vladimir Solovyov, a television presenter, according to the Financial Times.
The funeral is taking place of a much loved regular in Daughter's pub and mainstay of the village. He was 84 and died of cancer. A lovely gentle humorous man, with a sweet dog. The wake will be in the pub. It will be good to show his family how much he was liked - and will be missed.
The more they move there, the more it isn't in Ukraine.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
True, though if Finland and Sweden make an application to join NATO and Russia then attacks Finland and Sweden before their NATO membership is confirmed, that would still not technically be an attack on a NATO member state
If Finland and Sweden apply whilst Russia is moving troops up to the border, Putin would discover what the "fast track" channel is for.
Fuck technicalities, we wheel out the good stuff....
I don't think I'll be able to watch Under Siege again in the same way again.
The former Hollywood action star Steven Seagal has declared his support for his friend and “great world leader” President Putin.
The Under Siege and Hard to Kill actor attended a feast to celebrate his 70th birthday at a Moscow restaurant on Sunday, and was joined by several allies of the Russian president who are subject to western sanctions.
They included the editor-in-chief of the state-funded broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, and Vladimir Solovyov, a television presenter, according to the Financial Times.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
Though had Cameron not offered an EU referendum to try and minimise the UKIP surge, then Brexit might not have happened at all
That pressure cooker was going to blow regardless.
Now, if Cameron hadn't come back with a truly shite "renegotiation", then tried to sell it as something wonderful, then had a flounce at "little Englanders" when they laughed at it - then Brexit might not have happened at all.
It will studied for decades as How To Fuck-up A Negotiation 1.1.
A man goes into a carpet bazaar. "My man, I badly need a carpet. And this is how much money I have..." He proffers a large bundle of notes to the carpet seller - who goes into the back, to retrieve the most mouldy, moth-eaten thing he owns.... "Sorry, this is all you can afford.....", barely unable to restrain a grin.
Cameron did bungle it, but given the EU doesn't like giving the UK an inch, I don't think the best salesman could have sold it.
The police have said that they have issued about 50 FPNs in relation to parties at No. 10. They are also not issuing names.
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
I do not see why people who break the law should be allowed anonymity.
On which regard, should I be able to look up all my friends and family to see who's been given speeding tickets and the like?
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
Well, generally people who commit criminal offences are named. And others who have been given big Covid fines have been named.
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
It is unsatisfactory, partly because it is holding up the full publication of the Grey report. I'd settle for not knowing who got FPN's as ultimately trivial offences as long as the Grey report details what went on on, when and who.
Inclined to agree, but with one caveat. If 10 junior staff were fined and no-one at the top I'd smell a very big rat. Especially in such a small workplace and force.
The Quaker funeral (see page 1) was 'different', and unlike the one I went to on Saturday, there was no alcohol afterwards.
I have only ever been to one Quaker funeral (my daughter went to a Friends' School). It was very moving and graceful. Lots of silence.
There was. And some very moving remarks. Certainly more appropriate than some 'eulogies' I have heard from priests who have gained their info from grieving relatives.
This was a mother with two kids in their teens who died of cancer. At the funeral I learnt from her daughter that, according to her deceased mother, 'yellow foods' (e.g. savory foods like Cheezits, Cheetos, nachos) have no calories, but only on road trips. It was precisely those sorts of genuine, fond memories, from those moved to speak, that made the whole ceremony very memorable and, no doubt, helped far more in the grieving process than the typical CoE or RC funeral.
if they have a real 'New Deal' up their sleeve (and I hope they have) they will be well advised to reveal it after victory not before. It will be costly and tricky.
Until then they should promise a careful review of every single issue under the sun.
Then the problems really start when the Labour-led Coalition tries to enact something "costly and tricky".
My guess is you need a single party Government with a minimum majority of ~15 to do anything "costly and tricky".
From the Major years I'd say you need a majority of 30 to do almost anything at all. And that's when they're all from the same party. Coalitions will be even more fractious.
Not necessarily. The 2010-2015 Tory and LD Coalition government was one of the most stable governments since 1945
And yet the insistence on the gagging of any discussion about the EU by the LibDems led directly to Brexit - and the most unstable period of government since 1945.
Though had Cameron not offered an EU referendum to try and minimise the UKIP surge, then Brexit might not have happened at all
That pressure cooker was going to blow regardless.
Now, if Cameron hadn't come back with a truly shite "renegotiation", then tried to sell it as something wonderful, then had a flounce at "little Englanders" when they laughed at it - then Brexit might not have happened at all.
It will studied for decades as How To Fuck-up A Negotiation 1.1.
A man goes into a carpet bazaar. "My man, I badly need a carpet. And this is how much money I have..." He proffers a large bundle of notes to the carpet seller - who goes into the back, to retrieve the most mouldy, moth-eaten thing he owns.... "Sorry, this is all you can afford.....", barely unable to restrain a grin.
If your plan, in a democracy, is to hide from the voters, then you have already lost.
If the Lib Dems had allowed a referendum at the start of the coalition, it would have been 60/40 Remain, maybe 65/35
I don't think I'll be able to watch Under Siege again in the same way again.
The former Hollywood action star Steven Seagal has declared his support for his friend and “great world leader” President Putin.
The Under Siege and Hard to Kill actor attended a feast to celebrate his 70th birthday at a Moscow restaurant on Sunday, and was joined by several allies of the Russian president who are subject to western sanctions.
They included the editor-in-chief of the state-funded broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, and Vladimir Solovyov, a television presenter, according to the Financial Times.
Not sure this is survivable? If ones goes then the other surely has to? Other than at an election have both positions ever been vacated simultaneously?
I don't think I'll be able to watch Under Siege again in the same way again.
The former Hollywood action star Steven Seagal has declared his support for his friend and “great world leader” President Putin.
The Under Siege and Hard to Kill actor attended a feast to celebrate his 70th birthday at a Moscow restaurant on Sunday, and was joined by several allies of the Russian president who are subject to western sanctions.
They included the editor-in-chief of the state-funded broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, and Vladimir Solovyov, a television presenter, according to the Financial Times.
Not sure this is survivable? If ones goes then the other surely has to? Other than at an election have both positions ever been vacated simultaneously?
The more they move there, the more it isn't in Ukraine.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
True, though if Finland and Sweden make an application to join NATO and Russia then attacks Finland and Sweden before their NATO membership is confirmed, that would still not technically be an attack on a NATO member state
If Finland and Sweden apply whilst Russia is moving troops up to the border, Putin would discover what the "fast track" channel is for.
Fuck technicalities, we wheel out the good stuff....
Then head to WW3.
The position remains we only go to military action if a NATO member state is attacked otherwise just expanded sanctions, Sweden and Finland took the risk when they decided not to join NATO earlier. They are probably best now just staying independent nations as a NATO application would just provoke Putin
This does raise the question of how? Surely almost all its usable forces are currently committed?
Given the recently announced call up of reserves, perhaps they are sending the reservists and other conscripts to the Finnish border? Rather than sending them to Ukraine?
Have to wonder if the bucket of shit was which thrown over Rishi over the tax was an effort to get him to resign before the FPN was issued, and his fate is now tied with Boris.
Not sure this is survivable? If ones goes then the other surely has to? Other than at an election have both positions ever been vacated simultaneously?
The more they move there, the more it isn't in Ukraine.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
True, though if Finland and Sweden make an application to join NATO and Russia then attacks Finland and Sweden before their NATO membership is confirmed, that would still not technically be an attack on a NATO member state
If Finland and Sweden apply whilst Russia is moving troops up to the border, Putin would discover what the "fast track" channel is for.
Fuck technicalities, we wheel out the good stuff....
For the last time, if they follow on from the questionnaire, they aren't fines. The PM and Sunak would have to have agreed an FPN instead of prosecution.
Either that, or they've been served with an FPN, but haven't responded yet. If so, they could choose to decline the FPN.
The more they move there, the more it isn't in Ukraine.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
True, though if Finland and Sweden make an application to join NATO and Russia then attacks Finland and Sweden before their NATO membership is confirmed, that would still not technically be an attack on a NATO member state
If Finland and Sweden apply whilst Russia is moving troops up to the border, Putin would discover what the "fast track" channel is for.
Fuck technicalities, we wheel out the good stuff....
Finland is better integrated with US forces than many NATO members…..
The effect on pay rises and business investment will be interesting.
And despite the best employment situation since anyone can remember there will be endless thousands rushing off to get themselves £50k in debt doing totally unsuitable 'university' courses.
Despite all the negatvity on here about the economic position, the employment situation is this Country is remarkable.
Its a good time to be skilled working class northerner.
Not so good to be a young graduate in the south.
Latest wage growth data don't fully bear that out. A selection of sectors below. Manufacturing: 1.9% Of which engineering: 1.5% Construction: 5.8% Accommodation/food services: 14.1% Finance/insurance: 12.2% Professional/scientific/technical 9.9%. Best wage growth in 'unskilled' services occupation, with graduate heave services sectors doing well and 'skilled' manual sectors lagging. What you really don't want to be is a public sector worker: Public administration: 1.4% Education: 1.0%. (ONS data on average weekly earnings incl bonuses, y/y growth rates, Feb 2022).
Merely my anecdote (although backed up by the PMIs) but pay is increasing rapidly in manufacturing and construction currently.
As many people will be getting their annual pay rise in April we should see any effect come through in the next few months.
Well fingers crossed. The way the cost of living is going up we all need a pay rise.
If a cost of living crisis could be dealt with by pay rises we would not need any further discussion and the Tories would stay in government for ever by opening the taps. The cost of living crisis is caused by already too much money chasing too few goods. More money chasing the same goods does not assist.
For goodness sake don't tell @BartholomewRoberts. Not a few months ago he was celebrating price rises and wage rises and price rises and wage rises...
He was saying this was the roaring twenties.
That was before Sunak started raising taxes. Completely self-defeating policy.
Absolutely wage rises are a very good thing, so long as they're justified by full employment and the free market. The solution is for businesses to then invest in productivity, which funds wage rises and a virtuous circle.
We had centuries of raising wages and living standards all funded by improved productivity, science, technology and education. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Trying to go back to the stone age with cheap labour is not the solution.
Not sure this is survivable? If ones goes then the other surely has to? Other than at an election have both positions ever been vacated simultaneously?
2007 and 1990 from memory.
In both instances the Chancellor became PM surely? That is clearly not going to apply here!
Not sure this is survivable? If ones goes then the other surely has to? Other than at an election have both positions ever been vacated simultaneously?
Boris can survive this if he is brazen enough and his MPs are spineless enough.
Betting Warning. There is a lot of polling go in on for this second round, for the sake of your betting hangover, don’t mix your grain with your hop - follow trend within company not between them.
I have analysed it this morning, and the companies who have given Le Pen her highest second round scores have more recent polls lower, I see clear drift away from Le Pen, and Macron is my favoured bet to win this.
Weren't you tipping Macron to even make the final two?
I hope you're not the new Rogerdamus.
No. I always claimed Macron would make top two. Please find a post where I stated he wouldn’t if you wish to spin that. I claimed which ever of the anti establishment candidate made top with him could beat him, because the anti establishment vote has looked far stronger this time for months now. I never posted Macron would lose in first round, so it’s unfair to say that. My French election analysis actually proved spot on so far.
People after Sundays vote saying it’s 60/40 again, or people like Roger saying it’s 100% impossible for France to ever elect Le Pen, made me cross. 😠 Even now with the far closer election than last time drifting away from Le Pen I am getting zero credit for previously pointing out this is exactly where we would be today - and a great many Melenchon supporters may yet not abstain or go Macron, but pile onto Le Pen in the final moments, if Macron campaigns poorly and the last polls tighten showing he’s beatable.
Glib Le Pen comes across as uninspiring and unintelligent leader, her policies especially the financial ones are pure fantasy - making a mug of any voter who thinks they will do well from that policy, so votes for it, and behind every carefully crafted speech she gives is the chilling echo of Nazism.
But all history especially recent history proved these things can win elections, through complacency of the opposition.
PS thanks for replying to my post. This is the first time you have spoken to me since you banned me. 🙂
No. 10 has confirmed it. So possibly not a leak. Plan to front up to it and try and ride out the wave?
The timing and way it came out (breathless reporter, surprised presenter implies no need for confirmation), right at the end of the news, suggests No 10 fed the story. Noticeable PM AND Chancellor.
Comments
...........It's obvious Starmers got to go
BTW was the alibi fully given and tested in court? I don't know this case. Sometimes a jury is swayed even if the prosecution case is thin by the defence producing evidence they don't believe, eg disbelieving alibi evidence.
@shashj
·
1h
"Half of [Finnish] MPs, ie one hundred MPs, now support Finland's NATO membership"
https://twitter.com/shashj
Is this the castle you used to swim to?
I don't see how this is tenable. Either names leak. Or suspicions fall on innocent people. Or some confirm and others do not.
And if say the PM is not issued with an FPN but many of his staff are should we not know that? And whether these were senior or junior staff?
It all feels a bit messy and unsatisfactory. What do others think?
And how many staff are there in No 10? Is it 50? More? The kind of numbers involved points to some level of organization of these events which surely should attract more severe penalties, as in student cases.
And no, of course it isn't tenable. 50 fines so far for parties that Downing Street, the Big Dog and a string of cabinet ministers repeatedly said did not happen.
This is the original tweet.
If they are not publicly accountable (ie not politicians or political employees) but civil servants I see no reason for people to be named.
https://twitter.com/fattmellows/status/1513794050280800258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRQ7A_9Phpw
Now I understand that FPNs are more like speeding tickets etc. But given the circumstances of this particular investigation, is this really going to hold? Should those at the heart of government who breached such laws during such a time really remain anonymous?
Maybe we need to have anonymised descriptions or something. I dunno. But I am troubled by this. We have not been told the truth about any of this so far and this feels like another way in which the truth of what went on will be obscured.
It feels most unsatisfactory to me.
There is clearly public interest in how widespread the FPNs were and at what level of seniority, and more generally on the thought process which has led to some people getting fines and others not. I'd think that the Met should explain the criteria that they are using - that is clearly more important than knowing that junior civil servant Joe Bloggs is being fined £200. All the public really care about is whether similar standards are applied as those applied to students and other ordinary people, and whether Johnson or other Ministers are considered to have breached those standards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10710541/Russia-moves-military-equipment-Finnish-border-warning-Finland-not-join-NATO.html
In practice, the main weapon that a Government has is "stop messing us about or we'll call another election and ask for a proper mandate". I'd think that if Labour was the largest party and had a majority of 20 dependent on other parties, people would be open to improving on it if the other parties were seen as being unreasonably obstructive. Yes "oh, let's give them a chance" instinct is quite strong.
If someone were to refuse to pay an FPN, the Police could back down, or they could refer the case to the Courts, at which point it would all go public.
And the more likely that Finland (and Sweden) join NATO.
'66 was much better.
https://twitter.com/ClearBlueSee/status/1510602444237025280
The Quaker funeral (see page 1) was 'different', and unlike the one I went to on Saturday, there was no alcohol afterwards.
Betting Warning. There is a lot of polling go in on for this second round, for the sake of your betting hangover, don’t mix your grain with your hop - follow trend within company not between them.
I have analysed it this morning, and the companies who have given Le Pen her highest second round scores have more recent polls lower, I see clear drift away from Le Pen, and Macron is my favoured bet to win this.
If the second round was tomorrow, Macron would IMO be very safe. But he does need to get through the debate with Le Pen in one piece.
Now, if Cameron hadn't come back with a truly shite "renegotiation", then tried to sell it as something wonderful, then had a flounce at "little Englanders" when they laughed at it - then Brexit might not have happened at all.
It will studied for decades as How To Fuck-up A Negotiation 1.1.
A man goes into a carpet bazaar. "My man, I badly need a carpet. And this is how much money I have..." He proffers a large bundle of notes to the carpet seller - who goes into the back, to retrieve the most mouldy, moth-eaten thing he owns.... "Sorry, this is all you can afford.....", barely unable to restrain a grin.
The man is an utterly irredeemable thug and must be resisted.
I hope you're not the new Rogerdamus.
In deciding whether to put a case to the jury, the judge essentially takes the prosecution case at its highest and the defence case at its lowest. In the Kearney case, for example, if the judge decided that the strength of the prosecution case depended on the weight the jury atttached to the CCTV evidence, the case must be put to the jury regardless of the judge's view of that evidence.
It is, as an earlier poster said, wrong to say that, "he cannot appeal as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against". He doesn't need prosecution evidence to appeal against. That isn't how it works. He needs to either show that the trial was legally flawed (given the length of time that has passed, I presume it wasn't), or that he has new evidence. Finding new evidence is his big problem, combined with the reluctance of the courts to overturn convictions. The Court of Appeal still issues judgements in which they perform mental gymnastics to justify upholding a conviction that should clearly be overturned. In the Horizon scandal, for example, evidence of the cases so far is that all Post Office has to do is oppose an appeal and say that the conviction was not Horizon related and the Court of Appeal will uphold the conviction.
It is a particular disaster because having failed to consult and get real agreement from people we ended up with no possible good outcome. And here we are.
The former Hollywood action star Steven Seagal has declared his support for his friend and “great world leader” President Putin.
The Under Siege and Hard to Kill actor attended a feast to celebrate his 70th birthday at a Moscow restaurant on Sunday, and was joined by several allies of the Russian president who are subject to western sanctions.
They included the editor-in-chief of the state-funded broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, and Vladimir Solovyov, a television presenter, according to the Financial Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/steven-seagal-praises-great-world-leader-putin-0qrp96dx5
The funeral is taking place of a much loved regular in Daughter's pub and mainstay of the village. He was 84 and died of cancer. A lovely gentle humorous man, with a sweet dog. The wake will be in the pub. It will be good to show his family how much he was liked - and will be missed.
Fuck technicalities, we wheel out the good stuff....
A leaden footed oaf in private.
If the Lib Dems had allowed a referendum at the start of the coalition, it would have been 60/40 Remain, maybe 65/35
The position remains we only go to military action if a NATO member state is attacked otherwise just expanded sanctions, Sweden and Finland took the risk when they decided not to join NATO earlier. They are probably best now just staying independent nations as a NATO application would just provoke Putin
Either that, or they've been served with an FPN, but haven't responded yet. If so, they could choose to decline the FPN.
Absolutely wage rises are a very good thing, so long as they're justified by full employment and the free market. The solution is for businesses to then invest in productivity, which funds wage rises and a virtuous circle.
We had centuries of raising wages and living standards all funded by improved productivity, science, technology and education. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Trying to go back to the stone age with cheap labour is not the solution.
So he's in with a decent shout.
Though depends on how bad the polling and local election losses turn out to be for the Tories as to whether Johnson and Sunak survive
BREAKING: Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak set to receive fines for Covid-19 breaches #Partygate
No 10: “The PM and Chancellor have today received notification that the Metropolitan police intend to issue them with fixed penalty notices."
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1513861944045940738
People after Sundays vote saying it’s 60/40 again, or people like Roger saying it’s 100% impossible for France to ever elect Le Pen, made me cross. 😠 Even now with the far closer election than last time drifting away from Le Pen I am getting zero credit for previously pointing out this is exactly where we would be today - and a great many Melenchon supporters may yet not abstain or go Macron, but pile onto Le Pen in the final moments, if Macron campaigns poorly and the last polls tighten showing he’s beatable.
Glib Le Pen comes across as uninspiring and unintelligent leader, her policies especially the financial ones are pure fantasy - making a mug of any voter who thinks they will do well from that policy, so votes for it, and behind every carefully crafted speech she gives is the chilling echo of Nazism.
But all history especially recent history proved these things can win elections, through complacency of the opposition.
PS thanks for replying to my post. This is the first time you have spoken to me since you banned me. 🙂