Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.
In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.
Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
But even without trying to be precise it just isn't as simple as 'give x group money' nor are many of the problems of racial disparity in modern likely to be solved by cash - we already have cash which we can target, and issues of discrimination are not money driven for example.
It looks like an attempt to make a gesture in the absence of something meaningful, but hard to grapple with. Gestures can be useful, but not always, indeed sometimes they can be the opposite of useful as people think that the gesture (even a gesture with some cash) is all that is needed, job done.
I get the impulse, but even from advocates it seems to come down to 'We must do something, this is something'.
It si the rambling verbakl diahorrea of insane halfwitted snowflakes who should stick to putting mung beans in their piehole.
This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this.
I think John McDonnell is right, this isn't the way to attract new voters to the party. Seems misjudged, in the same way that the Tony Blair "demon eyes" campaign in the 1990s was from the Tories.
'Demon Eyes' failed because it broke the first rule of advertising. You can't persuade people to believe something that they don't. This one is just misguided. It's so tasteless it looks like an ad for the Tories
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
When I survey ... the wondrous cross. On which the prince of glory died. My richest gain I count but loss ... and pour contempt on a-a-all my pride.
Yes. I feel it today. The sadness, the sadness. Ah well.
That was played just before the 7am news on R4. Beautiful. A very welcome change from the BBC's constant self-advertising with exhortations to 'catch up on the iPlayer, listen with BBC Sounds'.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.
In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.
Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.
The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...
That's half true. In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system. As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.
You can turn a decent profit by driving people to perform hard, unskilled work, under threat of extremely painful, but non-lethal punishments. Especially if you can quickly replace those who become too ill or exhausted to work.
But, you couldn’t run a modern economy like that, however much some employers would like to.
The modern version is to silence people into complying with compulsory Wokery under fear of losing their careers and their reputations if they challenge it.
So wokery is the modern version of slavery? Anti-political correctness has gone very mad indeed.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.
You cannot shame these brexiteers , they will lie about anything.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
I love it. I used to ask for a stamp when I was travelling in 2003-2004 as a student, way before Brexit was even a thing, because I didn't like not collecting souvenirs of where I went.
It's a good thing.
Try arriving in Frankfurt just after an A380 and tell me then it’s a good thing. It’s a monumental pain in the arse. Brexit is a fantasia of red tape.
Going through passport control doesn't bother me. Sorry.
It does if they haven't staffed the desks properly. But I don't have a problem with borders and border security.
Its not exactly a tragedy if people are faced with a bit a travel bureaucracy. Sure it's annoying if they didn't before, but people do tend to lay it on a bit thick.
It is an issue if people who supported that which led to the bureacracy whinge about it, but that's separate to how big a deal the checks actually are.
For a weeks holiday it may not make much difference.
A long weekend however, where you fly out Friday night maybe arriving at 8 and expecting a decent night out sounds much less appealing if there is a 30% chance you are stuck in queue til 10.
Also people are missing more connections because of the variability in queuing times.
Hence why it is annoying. And can be argued to be unnecessary and a consequence of a stupid decision depending on one's POV. But we keep getting various pundits and commentators doing variations of "We got stuck in a queue, this is so stupid!", and even if it is, they're still really over egging it.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Why what?
It speaks for itself doesn't it? Waving a coach through takes seconds. 60 people getting off a coach, queuing up, each having their passport looked at and stamped, then each getting back on the coach combined with a bit of wandering around and chatting, finding your passport, putting on coat, taking off coat and getting settled takes time.
Blindingly obvious isn't it.
Moral of the story. Don't go by coach.
And what if you are a car a mile back trying to get past the huge queue of coaches. I must admit I do enjoy it when I am doing it on my pushbike.
When I survey ... the wondrous cross. On which the prince of glory died. My richest gain I count but loss ... and pour contempt on a-a-all my pride.
Yes. I feel it today. The sadness, the sadness. Ah well.
I'm pretty solidly irreligious, but I love that hymn. Well above most of the A&M dross.
I think there the some wonderful older hymns, way better than their modern equivalents, which are like pop songs of extremely poor quality.
The Naval Hymn, Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken, Amazing Grace, As Pants the Hart for Cooling Stream, Guide Me O, Thou Great Redeemer, knock their modern equivalents out of the park.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
I love it. I used to ask for a stamp when I was travelling in 2003-2004 as a student, way before Brexit was even a thing, because I didn't like not collecting souvenirs of where I went.
It's a good thing.
Try arriving in Frankfurt just after an A380 and tell me then it’s a good thing. It’s a monumental pain in the arse. Brexit is a fantasia of red tape.
Going through passport control doesn't bother me. Sorry.
It does if they haven't staffed the desks properly. But I don't have a problem with borders and border security.
Its not exactly a tragedy if people are faced with a bit a travel bureaucracy. Sure it's annoying if they didn't before, but people do tend to lay it on a bit thick.
It is an issue if people who supported that which led to the bureacracy whinge about it, but that's separate to how big a deal the checks actually are.
For a weeks holiday it may not make much difference.
A long weekend however, where you fly out Friday night maybe arriving at 8 and expecting a decent night out sounds much less appealing if there is a 30% chance you are stuck in queue til 10.
Also people are missing more connections because of the variability in queuing times.
Hence why it is annoying. And can be argued to be unnecessary and a consequence of a stupid decision depending on one's POV. But we keep getting various pundits and commentators doing variations of "We got stuck in a queue, this is so stupid!", and even if it is, they're still really over egging it.
Politically I think its important. Sometimes elections are won and lost not on whether governments made things 1% or 2% better for everyone but if something memorable or expensive happened to a few % who decide to vote them out. Also the introduction of more electronic checks is planned before the election, which is likely to have teething problems and keep it all in the news.
If Sunak could fix it before the election it would help him especially in the blue wall.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
I love it. I used to ask for a stamp when I was travelling in 2003-2004 as a student, way before Brexit was even a thing, because I didn't like not collecting souvenirs of where I went.
It's a good thing.
Try arriving in Frankfurt just after an A380 and tell me then it’s a good thing. It’s a monumental pain in the arse. Brexit is a fantasia of red tape.
Going through passport control doesn't bother me. Sorry.
It does if they haven't staffed the desks properly. But I don't have a problem with borders and border security.
Nope neither do I, but are you assuming it is because they aren't manned properly. This morning on the Today programme they reported that French border control was fully manned and it was only taking 4 hours. 4 hours is now good?
As reported when I landed in Lisbon and it coincided with a yank plane (or two) it took 3 hours. Every gate was open and when you got to the front of the queue they were putting people through the EU and priority* gate as well so it wasn't lack of staffing. I actually went through the EU gate but had to wait 3 hours for the privilege whereas there was no queue at the priority* gate or EU gate for others.
* What do you have to do to get through the priority gate normally?
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
[SNIP] That's fine, it's a consistent view. Might as well go the whole hog though and do away with the nation state altogether.
That’s a bit much? The current nation has a role, surely.
What is that role if you disallow the sense of shared heritage, history, national achievement, and yes, disgrace?
Football, every other year…😀
That’s fair. I think you can have pride in a nation as it is, without evoking past glories/infamies. For instance, despite some people views, I think Britain is a remarkably tolerant country, welcoming, friendly and generally a country who does the right thing.
"Welcoming" is difficult to substantiate objectively, given that most other European countries take in more refugees per capita than we do, and that one of our main topics of political discourse is how to stop any more from coming.
Edit: And after Iraq. "does the right thing" is on pretty shaky ground too.
In many parts of France, if you employ “too many foreigners” on you domestic building site, some kindly chap will protect the local labour force by burning your house down.
Ever wonder why the poor bastards are so desperate to escape from France across the Channel?
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
The even more depressing thing is the thought that Trump is looking at this sort of thing and getting ideas. After all, he wanted states last time to send different slates of electors following the presidential election, or just ignore the democratic vote in their state and send their own choices, and I don't think anyone went for that. But perhaps looking at this he is thinking how to persuade the Georgia House or whatever to expel dissenting voices as part of making such a job easier.
Conspiracy theory esque? Sure. But we know he and his backers explored these types of options before.
Korea to offer $5.3 billion in funding for battery industry https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=348615 ...The policy package is the latest in the government's measures to bolster the competitiveness of Korea's leading growth driver industries.
The government said in March that 300 trillion won in investments will be drawn from the private sector to establish the world's largest high-tech semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province surrounding Seoul by 2042...
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
The even more depressing thing is the thought that Trump is looking at this sort of thing and getting ideas. After all, he wanted states last time to send different slates of electors following the presidential election, or just ignore the democratic vote in their state and send their own choices, and I don't think anyone went for that. But perhaps looking at this he is thinking how to persuade the Georgia House or whatever to expel dissenting voices as part of making such a job easier.
Conspiracy theory esque? Sure. But we know he and his backers explored these types of options before.
In either North or South Carolina (I forget which) a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans which had won State elections, in the 1890’s, drawing support from both black and white voters, was violently driven from office by hardline Democrats, who then disenfranchised most blacks. The MAGA’s see that as a blueprint.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
I love it. I used to ask for a stamp when I was travelling in 2003-2004 as a student, way before Brexit was even a thing, because I didn't like not collecting souvenirs of where I went.
It's a good thing.
Try arriving in Frankfurt just after an A380 and tell me then it’s a good thing. It’s a monumental pain in the arse. Brexit is a fantasia of red tape.
Going through passport control doesn't bother me. Sorry.
It does if they haven't staffed the desks properly. But I don't have a problem with borders and border security.
Nope neither do I, but are you assuming it is because they aren't manned properly. This morning on the Today programme they reported that French border control was fully manned and it was only taking 4 hours. 4 hours is now good?
As reported when I landed in Lisbon and it coincided with a yank plane (or two) it took 3 hours. Every gate was open and when you got to the front of the queue they were putting people through the EU and priority* gate as well so it wasn't lack of staffing. I actually went through the EU gate but had to wait 3 hours for the privilege whereas there was no queue at the priority* gate or EU gate for others.
* What do you have to do to get through the priority gate normally?
The priority gate is usually for Business and First passengers, diplomats and flight crew.
I wonder if it will dawn on the Tory party that embracing an idea conceived by Boris, Farage and the ERG might not have been wholly wise.
Not unless it results in a crushing defeat in the next election and ones thereafter
It’s weird though, with Boris is discredited, the ERG are in the process of being marginalised, you might thing the obvious next step is to build on the NI policy and undo other aspects of hard Brexit that don’t work.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
Sentencing and parole are not the problem. The real trouble is inefficiency in policing and delays in the justice system mean many crimes, especially low-level ones, are now effectively consequence-free, with uncertain sanctions so far in the future they may as well not exist.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
I’d add that locking up repeat offenders is extremely efficient. Burglaries are often generally committed by people or gangs who commit many - per day. The pickings from each crime are small, so they make up for it with volume.
A few years back, under the coalition (I think), granting bail to those already on bail was stopped (mostly). The prisons filled rapidly and petty crime collapsed. The Guardian IIRC wondered why crime was down with so many people in prison.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
The even more depressing thing is the thought that Trump is looking at this sort of thing and getting ideas. After all, he wanted states last time to send different slates of electors following the presidential election, or just ignore the democratic vote in their state and send their own choices, and I don't think anyone went for that. But perhaps looking at this he is thinking how to persuade the Georgia House or whatever to expel dissenting voices as part of making such a job easier.
Conspiracy theory esque? Sure. But we know he and his backers explored these types of options before.
I don't think it's conspiracy theory to be concerned about the possibility. It's openly discussed by some Republicans, and they've been arguing the dodgy legal theory which would support such a possibility for two decades at least. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory
There are significant hurdles in its way, but in a close election it really isn't impossible.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
Yeah, and if we are not willing or able to fund it more heavily, we need to significantly reduce the scope of what is covered. Legalising drugs is by far the best way to do this. We should also (almost) stop adding more and more complex legislation each year to create new crimes.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
I love it. I used to ask for a stamp when I was travelling in 2003-2004 as a student, way before Brexit was even a thing, because I didn't like not collecting souvenirs of where I went.
It's a good thing.
Try arriving in Frankfurt just after an A380 and tell me then it’s a good thing. It’s a monumental pain in the arse. Brexit is a fantasia of red tape.
Going through passport control doesn't bother me. Sorry.
It does if they haven't staffed the desks properly. But I don't have a problem with borders and border security.
Nope neither do I, but are you assuming it is because they aren't manned properly. This morning on the Today programme they reported that French border control was fully manned and it was only taking 4 hours. 4 hours is now good?
As reported when I landed in Lisbon and it coincided with a yank plane (or two) it took 3 hours. Every gate was open and when you got to the front of the queue they were putting people through the EU and priority* gate as well so it wasn't lack of staffing. I actually went through the EU gate but had to wait 3 hours for the privilege whereas there was no queue at the priority* gate or EU gate for others.
* What do you have to do to get through the priority gate normally?
The priority gate is usually for Business and First passengers, diplomats and flight crew.
Have used priority gates at departure in Europe/UK and arrivals elsewhere in the world but can't recall using or seeing priority gates at arrivals in UK/EU for business class? Is that a thing?
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
Why?
Why what?
It speaks for itself doesn't it? Waving a coach through takes seconds. 60 people getting off a coach, queuing up, each having their passport looked at and stamped, then each getting back on the coach combined with a bit of wandering around and chatting, finding your passport, putting on coat, taking off coat and getting settled takes time.
Blindingly obvious isn't it.
Moral of the story. Don't go by coach.
Try putting that slogan on the side of a luxury bus.
I never go by coach. Being retired , if we are travelling significant distances we rise early ie 3am and drive before the jams start. Similarly retirning either by the same method or starting out late evening.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
Sentencing and parole are not the problem. The real trouble is inefficiency in policing and delays in the justice system mean many crimes, especially low-level ones, are now effectively consequence-free, with uncertain sanctions so far in the future they may as well not exist.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
And you think that’s a bad thing?
It’s a fairly dispassionate observation, if you want to apply your own subjective opinions, knock yer pan in.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
And you think that’s a bad thing?
It’s a fairly dispassionate observation, if you want to apply your own subjective opinions, knock yer pan in.
Well, look at Mrs May - she was pretty progressive on trans and it's undeniable that her successor backpedalled strongly on the issue. It's still unclear how UKG(London, prop: R. Sunak & Co.) will proceed.
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
So let us wait and see.
[edit] There is indeed the defamation issue. And even if charges were to be brought against anyone, Scottish judges really, really do not like contempt of court - and even Scottish courts have powers over the whole of the UK for such offences, as I understand it.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
I am not best placed to judge that. As I said the other day the impression I get is that sentences tend to be a bit longer in England but that may be because I am seeing the high profile cases reported in the media rather than the run of the mill case.
I think that there are several factors that are driving the increase in sex prosecutions and they seem to me to be likely to affect both jurisdictions.
Firstly, there seems to be less reluctance to report sex crimes. I think the #metoo movement has had a long term effect here. A trial I was doing a couple of weeks ago basically arose because the accused was named on a #metoo website. Several young women then told their stories, anonymously, and agreed to come forward together to report what had happened to each of them. He was convicted.
Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a vast improvement in police procedures in relation to such crimes which gives the complainers comfort and a greater tendency to remain engaged with the process. The police are now proactive in investigating the prior history of someone accused of such crimes looking out former partners and asking them whether they suffered sexual assault too. This not only finds unreported crimes but significantly increases the chances of a conviction.
Thirdly, and possibly more controversially, there is now a willingness to treat incidents that might have been overlooked before, as criminal. Sex with people when they are drunk and incapable of giving consent, for example or youthful incompetence.
I do not see the picture changing any time soon. Hopefully it will improve behaviour and redraw the boundaries of what is acceptable. But suggestions that sex offenders are treated lightly are well wide of the mark.
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
So let us wait and see.
[edit] There is indeed the defamation issue. And even if charges were to be brought against anyone, Scottish judges really, really do not like contempt of court - and even Scottish courts have powers over the whole of the UK for such offences, as I understand it.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
So let us wait and see.
[edit] There is indeed the defamation issue. And even if charges were to be brought against anyone, Scottish judges really, really do not like contempt of court - and even Scottish courts have powers over the whole of the UK for such offences, as I understand it.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
I suspect Casino Royale is right and this won’t trouble labour too much having media luvvies condemning him.
He’s got to be careful though. Those “media luvvies” and metropolitan liberals form a decent chunk of his voting coalition. I agree Starmer needs to be on the competent centre ground of British politics and that includes supporting and being appreciative to law and order concerns.
He doesn’t however need to be on the authoritarian hang ‘em and flog em Michael-Howard-esque side of the debate.
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
So let us wait and see.
[edit] There is indeed the defamation issue. And even if charges were to be brought against anyone, Scottish judges really, really do not like contempt of court - and even Scottish courts have powers over the whole of the UK for such offences, as I understand it.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
I am not best placed to judge that. As I said the other day the impression I get is that sentences tend to be a bit longer in England but that may be because I am seeing the high profile cases reported in the media rather than the run of the mill case.
I think that there are several factors that are driving the increase in sex prosecutions and they seem to me to be likely to affect both jurisdictions.
Firstly, there seems to be less reluctance to report sex crimes. I think the #metoo movement has had a long term effect here. A trial I was doing a couple of weeks ago basically arose because the accused was named on a #metoo website. Several young women then told their stories, anonymously, and agreed to come forward together to report what had happened to each of them. He was convicted.
Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a vast improvement in police procedures in relation to such crimes which gives the complainers comfort and a greater tendency to remain engaged with the process. The police are now proactive in investigating the prior history of someone accused of such crimes looking out former partners and asking them whether they suffered sexual assault too. This not only finds unreported crimes but significantly increases the chances of a conviction.
Thirdly, and possibly more controversially, there is now a willingness to treat incidents that might have been overlooked before, as criminal. Sex with people when they are drunk and incapable of giving consent, for example or youthful incompetence.
I do not see the picture changing any time soon. Hopefully it will improve behaviour and redraw the boundaries of what is acceptable. But suggestions that sex offenders are treated lightly are well wide of the mark.
Interesting, thank you. Will the judge in the case of late debate be issuing an explanation of the sentencing, or is that still optional, please?
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
Sentencing and parole are not the problem. The real trouble is inefficiency in policing and delays in the justice system mean many crimes, especially low-level ones, are now effectively consequence-free, with uncertain sanctions so far in the future they may as well not exist.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
Clearly the SNP have got a lot on their plate right now and there are plenty on here and elsewhere disinclined to help them or give the benefit of the doubt. However I can't be the only one who saw the 'dramatic arrest of public figure, later released without charge' and was a little nervous. Damien Green, Cliff Richard. I'm sure there is an element of the police that doesn't mind making politicians feel nervous.
So let us wait and see.
[edit] There is indeed the defamation issue. And even if charges were to be brought against anyone, Scottish judges really, really do not like contempt of court - and even Scottish courts have powers over the whole of the UK for such offences, as I understand it.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
I am not best placed to judge that. As I said the other day the impression I get is that sentences tend to be a bit longer in England but that may be because I am seeing the high profile cases reported in the media rather than the run of the mill case.
I think that there are several factors that are driving the increase in sex prosecutions and they seem to me to be likely to affect both jurisdictions.
Firstly, there seems to be less reluctance to report sex crimes. I think the #metoo movement has had a long term effect here. A trial I was doing a couple of weeks ago basically arose because the accused was named on a #metoo website. Several young women then told their stories, anonymously, and agreed to come forward together to report what had happened to each of them. He was convicted.
Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a vast improvement in police procedures in relation to such crimes which gives the complainers comfort and a greater tendency to remain engaged with the process. The police are now proactive in investigating the prior history of someone accused of such crimes looking out former partners and asking them whether they suffered sexual assault too. This not only finds unreported crimes but significantly increases the chances of a conviction.
Thirdly, and possibly more controversially, there is now a willingness to treat incidents that might have been overlooked before, as criminal. Sex with people when they are drunk and incapable of giving consent, for example or youthful incompetence.
I do not see the picture changing any time soon. Hopefully it will improve behaviour and redraw the boundaries of what is acceptable. But suggestions that sex offenders are treated lightly are well wide of the mark.
Interesting, thank you. Will the judge in the case of late debate be issuing an explanation of the sentencing, or is that still optional, please?
If there is an appeal he has to write a note for the High Court to review. I understand that the accused is intending to appeal and an appeal by the Crown is also possible, indeed likely. Some of that explanation may be redacted from the public, however.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
Sentencing and parole are not the problem. The real trouble is inefficiency in policing and delays in the justice system mean many crimes, especially low-level ones, are now effectively consequence-free, with uncertain sanctions so far in the future they may as well not exist.
The prisons are full. There is no room left.
We could build more....nah, that would never fly.
Floating prisons would be cheaper than flying ones
Tactically it would be foolish. You don’t want your own record thrown back at you.
Don’t interrupt your opponent etc.
Quite. "SKS was crap, he didn't prosecute Savile for the crimes for which we gave him the hospital keys" isn't a great story line. Especially as it would drag KCIII into it, just for socalising with Savile. Look how upset HYUFD was when he was reminded of that connection.
Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
Lol. No point in projecting a positive message in Scotland, lads. The gutter is the only language them Jocks understand.
Have we had a written judgement with reasons for sentencing from the judge, by the way?
Not as far as I know. Looks like the evil SNP have infiltrated the English legal system.
That is even more disgusting than the case up your way. What the hell is wrong with these judges?
Is it that judges aren't following the guidelines, or that the guidelines are (at least in part) stupid?
And of it's the second- why?
The tenor of the times? Seven years there was a kind of rough consensus on 'progressiveness' (which included trans issues) which may have resulted in over zealous or starry eyed application of enlightened values. A few disgusting politicians and tabloid campaigns later and that's all been put into reverse gear.
Hmm. Has it been put into reverse gear, or has the foot just been taken off the accelerator a bit? If it is in reverse gear, is that a problem depending on how far we back up?
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
On crime:
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes. We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere). We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
You might also include the system taking many years just to bring criminal cases to court..
I have read a fair bit about this and of course see it in the day job. The statistics show a completely different story. What they show is that in recent years the proportion of our population locked up, already extremely high by European standards, if below America, has been gradually increasing causing a series of crises in the prison estate.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Interesting, how much do you think Scotland has diverged from England on prisons and crime?
I am not best placed to judge that. As I said the other day the impression I get is that sentences tend to be a bit longer in England but that may be because I am seeing the high profile cases reported in the media rather than the run of the mill case.
I think that there are several factors that are driving the increase in sex prosecutions and they seem to me to be likely to affect both jurisdictions.
Firstly, there seems to be less reluctance to report sex crimes. I think the #metoo movement has had a long term effect here. A trial I was doing a couple of weeks ago basically arose because the accused was named on a #metoo website. Several young women then told their stories, anonymously, and agreed to come forward together to report what had happened to each of them. He was convicted.
Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a vast improvement in police procedures in relation to such crimes which gives the complainers comfort and a greater tendency to remain engaged with the process. The police are now proactive in investigating the prior history of someone accused of such crimes looking out former partners and asking them whether they suffered sexual assault too. This not only finds unreported crimes but significantly increases the chances of a conviction.
Thirdly, and possibly more controversially, there is now a willingness to treat incidents that might have been overlooked before, as criminal. Sex with people when they are drunk and incapable of giving consent, for example or youthful incompetence.
I do not see the picture changing any time soon. Hopefully it will improve behaviour and redraw the boundaries of what is acceptable. But suggestions that sex offenders are treated lightly are well wide of the mark.
Interesting, thank you. Will the judge in the case of late debate be issuing an explanation of the sentencing, or is that still optional, please?
If there is an appeal he has to write a note for the High Court to review. I understand that the accused is intending to appeal and an appeal by the Crown is also possible, indeed likely. Some of that explanation may be redacted from the public, however.
Tactically it would be foolish. You don’t want your own record thrown back at you.
Don’t interrupt your opponent etc.
Quite. "SKS was crap, he didn't prosecute Savile for the crimes for which we gave him the hospital keys" isn't a great story line. Especially as it would drag KCIII into it, just for socalising with Savile. Look how upset HYUFD was when he was reminded of that connection.
This stuff would be bizarre if it were not so outrageous. I'm no fan of disruptive protests within a legislature, usually done for personal PR, but even if that deserved sanction expulsion would be wildly disproportionate, and the reason why the white representative was not expelled as well is seriously weak. I'm to believe that the House voted 75-25 and 69-26 to expel the other two, but that purely on the grounds she did not use a megaphone those supporting expulson were 'No, that's just unfair'?
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
The reality is that expulsion, as opposed to suspension for breach of House rules, was, up until now, extremely rare.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
The even more depressing thing is the thought that Trump is looking at this sort of thing and getting ideas. After all, he wanted states last time to send different slates of electors following the presidential election, or just ignore the democratic vote in their state and send their own choices, and I don't think anyone went for that. But perhaps looking at this he is thinking how to persuade the Georgia House or whatever to expel dissenting voices as part of making such a job easier.
Conspiracy theory esque? Sure. But we know he and his backers explored these types of options before.
In either North or South Carolina (I forget which) a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans which had won State elections, in the 1890’s, drawing support from both black and white voters, was violently driven from office by hardline Democrats, who then disenfranchised most blacks. The MAGA’s see that as a blueprint.
You'd have thought that hardline Democrats and Nationalist Boers would get on like a house on fire.
I've been to a lot of movies lately. None were even half as packed as when going to the Super Mario Bros movie. No doubt a sign of cultural degradation for some.
Tactically it would be foolish. You don’t want your own record thrown back at you.
Don’t interrupt your opponent etc.
Quite. "SKS was crap, he didn't prosecute Savile for the crimes for which we gave him the hospital keys" isn't a great story line. Especially as it would drag KCIII into it, just for socalising with Savile. Look how upset HYUFD was when he was reminded of that connection.
Why are you bringing SKS's record into it?
I'm talking about Sunak suing Labour for libel
TBF I was responding t othe suggestion that such an action would be politically foolish, because it raises the stakes still more, and Labour would have nothing to lose by going back into history. With some very powerful photos.
A further issue is that it invites a counter-sue by SKS against the original Tory attack line, as espoused by the party and any Tories who followed it outside the HoC. That Mr Sunak decried Mr Johnson's comments makes them perhjaps more vulnerable.
I've been to a lot of movies lately. None were even half as packed as when going to the Super Mario Bros movie. No doubt a sign of cultural degradation for some.
I've been to a lot of movies lately. None were even half as packed as when going to the Super Mario Bros movie. No doubt a sign of cultural degradation for some.
People have been whining about the quality of popular movies since before the Hayes Code. Indeed that was part of the reason for it…
I never fail to find a certain joy in reviews of a Michael Bay movies which harp upon plot problems, poor character development etc and complain about his use of large explosions (using various materials to enhance the fireballs).
It argues a kind of optimism - that one day Mr Bay will relent and produce a Ken Loach film. As opposed continuing with the formula that has made him billions.
I suspect Casino Royale is right and this won’t trouble labour too much having media luvvies condemning him.
He’s got to be careful though. Those “media luvvies” and metropolitan liberals form a decent chunk of his voting coalition. I agree Starmer needs to be on the competent centre ground of British politics and that includes supporting and being appreciative to law and order concerns.
He doesn’t however need to be on the authoritarian hang ‘em and flog em Michael-Howard-esque side of the debate.
I suspect be more New Labour is their default position, and the ghastly Straw & Blunkett never did much harm to them in their pomp.
I do wonder if this (apparent) 3-D chess adoption of fairly reactionary position for electoral effect doesn’t have long term consequences though, ie they actually start believing this stuff. I also think Labour’s first term will be fairly punishing, the temptation to hang on to tabloid friendly policies will be massive,
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.
In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.
Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.
The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...
That's half true. In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system. As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.
It's not something I've ever looked into before, but why was cotton production so hard to mechanise, and therefore required large amounts of people to grow?
From that, it sounds like there were many tasks that needed doing: from weeding, and thinning, preparing the soil and spraying. Whilst some machines were developed, as long as they needed people around to pick the cotton, mechanisation of the earlier tasks was also less economic.
I do wonder if the lack of mechanisation was not down to technology, but to the fact the owners realised the effects mechanisation would have, as stated above? And if it works, why fix it?
No, it was far more likely down to the lack of the internal combustion engine a hundred years earlier.
As the story you link indicates, the development of a practical machine for picking cotton was a long drawn out process even in the twentieth century.
I suspect Casino Royale is right and this won’t trouble labour too much having media luvvies condemning him.
He’s got to be careful though. Those “media luvvies” and metropolitan liberals form a decent chunk of his voting coalition. I agree Starmer needs to be on the competent centre ground of British politics and that includes supporting and being appreciative to law and order concerns.
He doesn’t however need to be on the authoritarian hang ‘em and flog em Michael-Howard-esque side of the debate.
I suspect be more New Labour is their default position, and the ghastly Straw & Blunkett never did much harm to them in their pomp.
I do wonder if this (apparent) 3-D chess adoption of fairly reactionary position for electoral effect doesn’t have long term consequences though, ie they actually start believing this stuff. I also think Labour’s first term will be fairly punishing, the temptation to hang on to tabloid friendly policies will be massive,
I suspect Casino Royale is right and this won’t trouble labour too much having media luvvies condemning him.
He’s got to be careful though. Those “media luvvies” and metropolitan liberals form a decent chunk of his voting coalition. I agree Starmer needs to be on the competent centre ground of British politics and that includes supporting and being appreciative to law and order concerns.
He doesn’t however need to be on the authoritarian hang ‘em and flog em Michael-Howard-esque side of the debate.
I suspect be more New Labour is their default position, and the ghastly Straw & Blunkett never did much harm to them in their pomp.
I do wonder if this (apparent) 3-D chess adoption of fairly reactionary position for electoral effect doesn’t have long term consequences though, ie they actually start believing this stuff. I also think Labour’s first term will be fairly punishing, the temptation to hang on to tabloid friendly policies will be massive,
The temptation to hang?!?
Oh yes, never miss the chance to flog a horse, dead or otherwise.
I've been to a lot of movies lately. None were even half as packed as when going to the Super Mario Bros movie. No doubt a sign of cultural degradation for some.
People have been whining about the quality of popular movies since before the Hayes Code. Indeed that was part of the reason for it…
I never fail to find a certain joy in reviews of a Michael Bay movies which harp upon plot problems, poor character development etc and complain about his use of large explosions (using various materials to enhance the fireballs).
It argues a kind of optimism - that one day Mr Bay will relent and produce a Ken Loach film. As opposed continuing with the formula that has made him billions.
I blame the people that go see them, for encouraging him...
She is correct. He deserves prison for Jan 6th (and probably a lot else) but not for hush money, or for falsifying business records for hush money.
Not entirely sure why the US taxpayer should be chipping in to pay off Trump's peccadillos. Claiming hush money was legal fees and deductible for tax purposes was definitely naughty. No great problem with him paying it in the first place but it was not a business expense.
As for Jan 6th, and his attempts to corrupt the democratic process in Georgia, yes he absolutely should go to jail for that.
What was said about Starmer, by any Tory MPs, other than that he “failed to prosecute Savile when he was DPP”?
Did anyone say he actually didn’t want to do it? That may be implied by, or inferred from, saying that he missed an opportunity to do so, but it’s not a straight out obvious lie like this one about Sunak
Good Morning, although somewhat belated, from a sunny North Essex. No-one who dislikes airport queues should fly into Bangkok! Queues are massive. Fortunately there is a separate, much shorter one at a special gate for the over 70’s!
She is correct. He deserves prison for Jan 6th (and probably a lot else) but not for hush money, or for falsifying business records for hush money.
While I’m tempted to agree, I’m more inclined to wait for the case to be fully outlined first. It’s possible the DA has rather more that Ms D. is aware of - the coverup often involving greater malfeasance than the original offence.
It is though just as possible that the case for elevating it above a number of misdemeanours simply can’t be made.
I've been to a lot of movies lately. None were even half as packed as when going to the Super Mario Bros movie. No doubt a sign of cultural degradation for some.
People have been whining about the quality of popular movies since before the Hayes Code. Indeed that was part of the reason for it…
I never fail to find a certain joy in reviews of a Michael Bay movies which harp upon plot problems, poor character development etc and complain about his use of large explosions (using various materials to enhance the fireballs).
It argues a kind of optimism - that one day Mr Bay will relent and produce a Ken Loach film. As opposed continuing with the formula that has made him billions.
I blame the people that go see them, for encouraging him...
She is correct. He deserves prison for Jan 6th (and probably a lot else) but not for hush money, or for falsifying business records for hush money.
Not entirely sure why the US taxpayer should be chipping in to pay off Trump's peccadillos. Claiming hush money was legal fees and deductible for tax purposes was definitely naughty. No great problem with him paying it in the first place but it was not a business expense…
It doesn’t excuse it, but apparently he also overpaid taxes as a result of the efforts to cover it up.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.
In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.
Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.
The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...
That's half true. In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system. As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.
It's not something I've ever looked into before, but why was cotton production so hard to mechanise, and therefore required large amounts of people to grow?
From that, it sounds like there were many tasks that needed doing: from weeding, and thinning, preparing the soil and spraying. Whilst some machines were developed, as long as they needed people around to pick the cotton, mechanisation of the earlier tasks was also less economic.
I do wonder if the lack of mechanisation was not down to technology, but to the fact the owners realised the effects mechanisation would have, as stated above? And if it works, why fix it?
No, it was far more likely down to the lack of the internal combustion engine a hundred years earlier.
As the story you link indicates, the development of a practical machine for picking cotton was a long drawn out process even in the twentieth century.
There was no IC engine for many jobs during the early industrial revolution - yet people still managed to do stuff. Steam engines were introduced onto farms before 1800, and portable ones that could be moved at around the time the practical locomotive was created.
I know the deep south was much less industrially-developed compared to the northern states, but if there had been a will, there would have been a way to at least do some changes - and the fact it was only done in the 1930s probably wasn't down to some magical new enabler being required.
My *guess* - and it is no more than that for a short amount of reading - is the following. Such technological developments to improve productivity require massive amounts of capital. In many industries, the owners saw the advantages and strove for new technology - and those that did not, often succumbed to competitive pressures.
But in the south, increased productivity would throw loads of slaves out of work, which would lead to social changes. The owners in other industries and countries did not care much about the social changes (hence luddites); but in the south the system was based around slavery. What would happen if the slaves had no work? There was therefore a massive disincentive to improving productivity via machines.
Comments
Fascinating that some of the Republicans in the House compared the actions of those expelled to insurrection and the 6th January riots, even as they and their colleagues nationally begin to praise those who took part in the riots and support the one who instigated it by trying to overturn an election.
I guess insurrection is one of those issues that is only sometimes a problem.
The other depressing part is the strength of partisanship - usually if you have a group of 75 you'd assume at least a few would be out of step on an issue like this, a handful of dissenters doing a "They were wrong to disrupt, but this is not the way". But no. 75 GOP, 75 votes in favour for the first.
Happy Easter all.
The Naval Hymn, Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken, Amazing Grace, As Pants the Hart for Cooling Stream, Guide Me O, Thou Great Redeemer, knock their modern equivalents out of the park.
Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor
‘For years, one of your colleagues, an admitted child molester, sat in this chamber – no expulsion’
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1644057153928413184
And replace it with a religious festival centred on hope, redemption and generosity.
If Sunak could fix it before the election it would help him especially in the blue wall.
I don't think it is a major problem, but there is sometimes a tendency to assume that any progress is good, and it isn't, or not all progress is well thought out. Reviewing and assessing our actions and correcting on occasion, or adjusting, is also very important. So if it is a case of some ideas and policies ran a bit further ahead than was sensible, and that is clawed back bit, great.
If it is a case of people trying to simply head back to where we started, well, I don't think there's support for that on most 'progressive' issues. People in general are in a much more open and tolerant space than they were even 20 years ago. They just may not be on board on specific trends pushed even more recently.
On issues like crime sentencing there's a much greater risk of rollback, since the public is usually pretty amenable to any hang em and flog em rhetoric.
As reported when I landed in Lisbon and it coincided with a yank plane (or two) it took 3 hours. Every gate was open and when you got to the front of the queue they were putting people through the EU and priority* gate as well so it wasn't lack of staffing. I actually went through the EU gate but had to wait 3 hours for the privilege whereas there was no queue at the priority* gate or EU gate for others.
* What do you have to do to get through the priority gate normally?
Ever wonder why the poor bastards are so desperate to escape from France across the Channel?
@Independent
Actors, comedians and TV presenters condemn Labour party’s ‘horrendous’ anti-Rishi Sunak advert
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/labour-party-rishi-sunak-advert-b2315910.html
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1644257452811227136
Conspiracy theory esque? Sure. But we know he and his backers explored these types of options before.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=348615
...The policy package is the latest in the government's measures to bolster the competitiveness of Korea's leading growth driver industries.
The government said in March that 300 trillion won in investments will be drawn from the private sector to establish the world's largest high-tech semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province surrounding Seoul by 2042...
We are importantly too lenient on sentencing and parole for sex crimes.
We should be far more wary of criminalising youngsters involved in drugs (ideally make it legal so policing and courts can focus elsewhere).
We don't catch anywhere near enough fraudsters or white collar criminals yet make loads of ineffective red tape around banking to pretend we take it seriously.
It is not a we need to be softer or harder on crime, but we need to think about what works and what doesn't.
One of the signs of a confident party is when it's willing to annoy its core to get other voters.
I'd prefer a clearer "harsh words are pointless when your actions aren't doing the basics", but this isn't aimed at me.
white voters, was violently driven from office by hardline Democrats, who then disenfranchised most blacks. The MAGA’s see that as a blueprint.
A few years back, under the coalition (I think), granting bail to those already on bail was stopped (mostly). The prisons filled rapidly and petty crime collapsed. The Guardian IIRC wondered why crime was down with so many people in prison.
It's openly discussed by some Republicans, and they've been arguing the dodgy legal theory which would support such a possibility for two decades at least.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory
There are significant hurdles in its way, but in a close election it really isn't impossible.
That increase has been almost entirely driven by a large number of long term prisoners, many of them much older than the traditional population. By far the largest cause of this increase has been convictions for sex crimes, often historic. In comparison, the number of people in prison for being concerned in the supply of drugs, for example, has been falling. In Scotland we also now have a very sensible presumption against short periods of imprisonment which has helped.
Sex crime currently composes something like 80% of the trials proceeding through the High Court in Scotland and we are running more trials than ever before because of the backlog that arose during Covid. Anecdotally, I am currently engaged in my 3rd rape trial this month and I have another one lined up to start the moment the current one concludes. The alleged offences in my current case occurred in 2019. Not great but they were not reported to the police until 2021 and the trial will conclude on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. This is too long for summary business but in the High Court it does not strike me as wildly excessive.
The recent decision on a community based disposal was very much the exception, hence all the attention it got. I suspect it will be appealed.
Everyone will be going to church. To stand for 6 hours (no pews), in unheated ch https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/ is a good place to start.
So let us wait and see.
I see that the 'digging up the garden' was a lot of nonsense, apparently, by the way - presumably because some press hack saw a cop moving a shovel out of the garden shed or something.
I think that there are several factors that are driving the increase in sex prosecutions and they seem to me to be likely to affect both jurisdictions.
Firstly, there seems to be less reluctance to report sex crimes. I think the #metoo movement has had a long term effect here. A trial I was doing a couple of weeks ago basically arose because the accused was named on a #metoo website. Several young women then told their stories, anonymously, and agreed to come forward together to report what had happened to each of them. He was convicted.
Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a vast improvement in police procedures in relation to such crimes which gives the complainers comfort and a greater tendency to remain engaged with the process. The police are now proactive in investigating the prior history of someone accused of such crimes looking out former partners and asking them whether they suffered sexual assault too. This not only finds unreported crimes but significantly increases the chances of a conviction.
Thirdly, and possibly more controversially, there is now a willingness to treat incidents that might have been overlooked before, as criminal. Sex with people when they are drunk and incapable of giving consent, for example or youthful incompetence.
I do not see the picture changing any time soon. Hopefully it will improve behaviour and redraw the boundaries of what is acceptable. But suggestions that sex offenders are treated lightly are well wide of the mark.
And, as it is still Good Friday, a nice egg-y o/t story.
He doesn’t however need to be on the authoritarian hang ‘em and flog em Michael-Howard-esque side of the debate.
https://en.mercopress.com/2022/11/19/rumors-of-bribe-hit-ecuador-s-team-playing-in-qatar
Don’t interrupt your opponent etc.
"Actors, comedians and TV presenters."
I'm talking about Sunak suing Labour for libel
A further issue is that it invites a counter-sue by SKS against the original Tory attack line, as espoused by the party and any Tories who followed it outside the HoC. That Mr Sunak decried Mr Johnson's comments makes them
perhjaps more vulnerable.
I think it's worth considering, though
Rich Rishi can afford it; could Labour afford to lose?
This is a girl who stays bought.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1644114319930531845?cxt=HHwWioC9mevQiNEtAAAA
I never fail to find a certain joy in reviews of a Michael Bay movies which harp upon plot problems, poor character development etc and complain about his use of large explosions (using various materials to enhance the fireballs).
It argues a kind of optimism - that one day Mr Bay will relent and produce a Ken Loach film. As opposed continuing with the formula that has made him billions.
I do wonder if this (apparent) 3-D chess adoption of fairly reactionary position for electoral effect doesn’t have long term consequences though, ie they actually start believing this stuff. I also think Labour’s first term will be fairly punishing, the temptation to hang on to tabloid friendly policies will be massive,
As the story you link indicates, the development of a practical machine for picking cotton was a long drawn out process even in the twentieth century.
As for Jan 6th, and his attempts to corrupt the democratic process in Georgia, yes he absolutely should go to jail for that.
Did anyone say he actually didn’t want to do it? That may be implied by, or inferred from, saying that he missed an opportunity to do so, but it’s not a straight out obvious lie like this one about Sunak
No-one who dislikes airport queues should fly into Bangkok! Queues are massive. Fortunately there is a separate, much shorter one at a special gate for the over 70’s!
It is though just as possible that the case for elevating it above a number of misdemeanours simply can’t be made.
I know the deep south was much less industrially-developed compared to the northern states, but if there had been a will, there would have been a way to at least do some changes - and the fact it was only done in the 1930s probably wasn't down to some magical new enabler being required.
My *guess* - and it is no more than that for a short amount of reading - is the following. Such technological developments to improve productivity require massive amounts of capital. In many industries, the owners saw the advantages and strove for new technology - and those that did not, often succumbed to competitive pressures.
But in the south, increased productivity would throw loads of slaves out of work, which would lead to social changes. The owners in other industries and countries did not care much about the social changes (hence luddites); but in the south the system was based around slavery. What would happen if the slaves had no work? There was therefore a massive disincentive to improving productivity via machines.
P'haps.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1644284967231320065?t=UTYGDgCt6MFf6AKZDyU7SA&s=19