As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
That would be tackling the wrong problem. Around 70% of rape cases that get to court end in a conviction. The problem is that most cases don't get to court, the most common reason by far being the complainant withdrawing. If we really want to improve the conviction rate for rape (i.e. the proportion of reported rapes that lead to a conviction), we need to find out why so many women withdraw their complaints and do something about that. Is it because they hear the conviction rate statistic that is normally touted and think there is no point pursuing the matter? Is it because they don't want to go through a trial? The attitude of the police? Threats from their attacker? Or something else? If we knew that, we might be able to do something about it.
A huge problem with rape is both parties having consumed alcohol/drugs. Women put themselves in a position where events happen without either party having much recall on whether consent was given. Regret can turn into a certainty that she wouldn't have had intercourse with that man. When sober. But she wasn't.
Men might allow their better (sober) judgment to become clouded by lust. They might well have superior physical force to enforce that lust.
The law then has to, er, insert itself and try and untangle that mess. It's hardly surprising that large numbers of prosecutions never happen. You could perhaps ensure that prosecutions happen if you have a legal assumption that if a woman says she wouldn't have consented in those circumstances, then she hasn't. But is that justice for men? No.
Perhaps we need a new offence that falls short of the draconian consequences of rape. One where consent cannot be ascertained, because one or both were not in a position to know if they had given it/received it. Where people (women) might be more inclined to prosecute
"Men might allow their better (sober) judgment to become clouded by lust."
The problem is, that's not an excuse. In fact, it's almost a definition of ?most? rape cases.
Then the only answer is that women must leave the company of men getting tipsy/high. Or risk getting raped.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
The Libyan “Coastguard” has turned prison into a profit centre. Time to expand their operations?
Time was when indenturing criminals and sending them to the Carribean was a thing. Perhaps we could send all the sex offenders (historic and otherwise) to work on the farms in Libya?
Perhaps a good slogan would help - “Work will make you free” ?
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
Nope. I genuinely believe it. Not for everyone of course, but for many.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
That would be tackling the wrong problem. Around 70% of rape cases that get to court end in a conviction. The problem is that most cases don't get to court, the most common reason by far being the complainant withdrawing. If we really want to improve the conviction rate for rape (i.e. the proportion of reported rapes that lead to a conviction), we need to find out why so many women withdraw their complaints and do something about that. Is it because they hear the conviction rate statistic that is normally touted and think there is no point pursuing the matter? Is it because they don't want to go through a trial? The attitude of the police? Threats from their attacker? Or something else? If we knew that, we might be able to do something about it.
A huge problem with rape is both parties having consumed alcohol/drugs. Women put themselves in a position where events happen without either party having much recall on whether consent was given. Regret can turn into a certainty that she wouldn't have had intercourse with that man. When sober. But she wasn't.
Men might allow their better (sober) judgment to become clouded by lust. They might well have superior physical force to enforce that lust.
The law then has to, er, insert itself and try and untangle that mess. It's hardly surprising that large numbers of prosecutions never happen. You could perhaps ensure that prosecutions happen if you have a legal assumption that if a woman says she wouldn't have consented in those circumstances, then she hasn't. But is that justice for men? No.
Perhaps we need a new offence that falls short of the draconian consequences of rape. One where consent cannot be ascertained, because one or both were not in a position to know if they had given it/received it. Where people (women) might be more inclined to prosecute
"Men might allow their better (sober) judgment to become clouded by lust."
The problem is, that's not an excuse. In fact, it's almost a definition of ?most? rape cases.
Then the only answer is that women must leave the company of men getting tipsy/high. Or risk getting raped.
That doesn't work.
No.
The answer is for *men* to realise and understand situations they might do stuff they wouldn't ordinarily want to do, and avoid those situations. Ditto anyone who might get violent or do non-optimal stuff (e.g. drink-drive).
And for society *not* to say "well, she was tipsy", or "he was drunk; he's normally a good lad."
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
The self-doubt oozes through his every post.
I don’t at all doubt that my decision to leave works for me (for now), and I think it would work for many others.
You are now in the twilight of your years, reduced to vindictive posturing on here and hours of moth-bothering. I don’t expect you to understand.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
She is right of course that politicians of all stripes will the result but not the means. I can only speak about Scotland but I suspect my experience is replicated south of the border.
The Crown are putting huge resources into prosecuting sex crimes. More than 80% of all cases prosecuted in the High Court are now sex crimes. The police have got much better at dealing with such crimes. They go looking for corroboration from previous partners and they often find it, funnily enough.
It remains extremely difficult to prove a single complainer rape. How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt in what is typically a he said she said situation? Multiple complainers change the odds markedly. Prosecutors slightly cynically talk of the rule of 3. 3 complainers = conviction almost every time. But so many other parts of the system are creaking. For the system to work defence counsel are at least as important as prosecutors. But legal aid rates were fixed ( in Scotland) for nearly 20 years and then there was a below inflation increase. It’s really hard to make good money at the defence bar. Sex offenders are not allowed to do their own cases. No defence = no trial. The prison estate is stretched and clearly affecting sentencing. No one, let alone the present governments in Holyrood and Westminster, wants to spend money on these things. Let’s just argue for harsher sentences instead.
Thanks for the perspective, very interesting comment.
I'd be amazed though if labour party don't increase legal aid rates. Starmer will understand these issues well.
Lammy has some plan to force law firms to do a minimum amount of pro bono hours to be eligible for govt contracts.
Sounds a bit contrived/complicated to me - any thoughts on whether you think that will work?
It sounds an excellent way of increasing the cost of bought in work from the legal profession. There is a book called Free Lunch by David Smith which explains this in such simple terms even your average politician should be able to grasp it. It should be required reading for anyone elected.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
And to make things worse, we have had a "peace dividend" since the end of the cold war which has reduced defence spending somewhat. The government are now committed to increasing that as a percentage of GDP, meaning that part of the right hand side will expand. Add to that the increase in childcare recently announced in the budget.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Will this include the DfE? Or are they bitter fruit?
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Spending my teenage years in the Leadon Vale, a summer of picking fruit was a handy source of pocket money. Strawberries? Difficult to see what technology could outperform an army of itinerant travellers.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
Robots pick soft fruit in the Netherlands? Didn't know that.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because the policies of the Conservative Party are bad.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
Again, FFS, all this excludes the impending AI revolution
See my robo-cleaners in Bangkok airport, and apply that to every single sector of society
Including, I am afraid to say, the Knowledge and Creative sectors. Everyone is threatened/benefited
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
The self-doubt oozes through his every post.
I don’t at all doubt that my decision to leave works for me (for now), and I think it would work for many others.
You are now in the twilight of your years, reduced to vindictive posturing on here and hours of moth-bothering. I don’t expect you to understand.
Emigration is quite a good solution to the housing problem. For instance, where I live in the south east, the housing situation is totally hopeless. How can you afford £1000 per month for a precarious rental flat plus bills when you earn £1500 a month and then retired people on massive pensions have convinced themselves the problem is that you are greedy and entitled. You could actually move to other places in Europe, there are lots of places with good quality houses, good quality government services, and plentiful jobs who are desperate for more younger people. Or just somewhere else in the UK, somewhere like Shetland for instance.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
Robots pick soft fruit in the Netherlands? Didn't know that.
John Howell has been utterly anodyne. I'm surprised people still think he is an MP.
I'm sure Henley would have Boris back. But first he has to decide what he wants from politics. Because it won't be the top job. And it is hard to see him getting a job even in the Cabinet. Or even sitting it out for a term at least as a minimum on the backbenches.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Spending my teenage years in the Leadon Vale, a summer of picking fruit was a handy source of pocket money. Strawberries? Difficult to see what technology could outperform an army of itinerant travellers.
It’s been demonstrated - modern computer vision, object understanding and manipulators can actually do a better job than humans.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
The Tories have spent a couple of centuries or so warning that if you were to give the vote to too many people they would end up bankrupting the nation by voting for political parties that promised financial transfers to a majority of the population from a minority. So it's - briefly - hilarious that the party that these financially incontinent voters are voting for is the Tories.
Although, if I had to identify a single tipping point it would be this event in October 1999, so both parties are implicated. The corollary is that, if Labour do form the next government, we may well see massive changes in the age profile of political support, as pensioners are pleasantly surprised by the mollycoddling they receive from Labour chancellors.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because the policies of the Conservative Party are bad.
You were responding there to @eek who said "Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire..." As a matter of fact our tax burden is not high compared with other similar countries:
and though it has grown over time, it has done so just as much elsewhere:
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
Maybe they can hope for the judge in that Kids Company case. Who took the view it would be unfair to hold the people who signed off on the accounts legally liable for their legal liability. Because otherwise it would be hard to get people to accept legal liability as leaders in charities….
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
...of course, you have to hope you can correctly identify that other location. I'm currently listening to the 2012 Reith lectures which were by conservative-leaning economic historian Niall Ferguson. In lecture one he diagnosed the UK and other western nations as suffering from institutional decline and gradually failing to hold rule-of-law in as high esteem as it used to, and consequently declining economically too. In the Q&A afterward, somebody asked the "well, where is doing better at this?". His answer was that he would advise a young person to emigrate to a place where the rule-of-law was clearly strengthening and which was thus on the path to prosperity. His suggestion was ... Hong Kong.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
Speaking of a husband and wife team, has anyone done this yet?
Migration for generalised political reasons rather than personal opportunities seems like a very niche activity.
@Gardenwalker should remember that despite his counsel of despair, hundreds of thousands of people are moving to the UK every year because they see opportunity here.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Spending my teenage years in the Leadon Vale, a summer of picking fruit was a handy source of pocket money. Strawberries? Difficult to see what technology could outperform an army of itinerant travellers.
It’s been demonstrated - modern computer vision, object understanding and manipulators can actually do a better job than humans.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
More importantly, he need to find a way out. Which is a hell of a challenge for someone elected with the help of those who are a part of the problem and as the "continuity" candidate. I don't envy him at all. If he wasn't such a conceited little sh1t I might even feel sorry for him.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because the policies of the Conservative Party are bad.
You were responding there to @eek who said "Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire..." As a matter of fact our tax burden is not high compared with other similar countries:
and though it has grown over time, it has done so just as much elsewhere:
You can read that chart in many different ways, depending on the time horizon you want to use!
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because the policies of the Conservative Party are bad.
You were responding there to @eek who said "Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire..." As a matter of fact our tax burden is not high compared with other similar countries:
and though it has grown over time, it has done so just as much elsewhere:
You can read that chart in many different ways, depending on the time horizon you want to use!
Yes, admittedly the recent steep growth is a tad disconcerting but I think it has a lot to do with Covid related profligacy..
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
Robots pick soft fruit in the Netherlands? Didn't know that.
Farming in the Netherlands is incredibly factory-like compared to the UK. The greenhouses are really something to behold.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a revealing thread a few days ago about crime in San Francisco which shows how even liberals are being pushed towards some very reactionary positions because of how bad things are getting.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because the policies of the Conservative Party are bad.
You were responding there to @eek who said "Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire..." As a matter of fact our tax burden is not high compared with other similar countries:
and though it has grown over time, it has done so just as much elsewhere:
You are right that our tax burden is not high compared with other countries (which I think demonstrates that we could increase it without much difficulty). However, neither @eek or myself said the tax burden was high compared with other countries. eek's comparison was with the past tax burden in this country.
Moreover, the point, I suggest, is not just that our tax burden is higher than before, but that it is so while at the same time public services are so poor. We're paying more for less. I'd be happy to pay more for more, but I think we can all agree that paying more for less is suboptimal. Why are we paying more for less? Well, the obvious answer is because of the policies of the political party that's been in charge for the last 13 years.
You also say that our tax burden has grown "just as much elsewhere". You're right that the graphs for elsewhere show increases, but it's notable that those increases don't parallel those for the UK graph. They've gone up (and down) at different times. This erodes the argument that the UK situation today (pay more, get less) is some inevitable consequence of global challenges. I suggest what the graphs show is that Conservative governments went for short-term tax cuts at the cost of underinvesting, which has led to the situation today.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
More importantly, he need to find a way out. Which is a hell of a challenge for someone elected with the help of those who are a part of the problem and as the "continuity" candidate. I don't envy him at all. If he wasn't such a conceited little sh1t I might even feel sorry for him.
As much as I want him to get his comeuppance, this is all very unseemly.
IIRC, SNP leaders can be no confidenced at Conference? Might have changed, Sturgeon fiddled a lot of rule changes to suit herself and her pals.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
That is manifestly and obviously wrong. I am astonished and dismayed. That is not justice. What was the sentence?
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
It's not all back. Housing costs hit a wall and growth moved from expensive cities like NY/SF to cheaper ones like Austin. Young families have always moved out of cities, but they haven't always had echo chamber social media to make them think everyone else was moving out too.
Everyone means well, but jings if this isn't one of the gloomiest, most depressing PB forum threads I can remember for a while, for all sorts of topics discussed.
Better watch some Taskmaster to try and anaesthetise myself somewhat.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
Robots pick soft fruit in the Netherlands? Didn't know that.
Farming in the Netherlands is incredibly factory-like compared to the UK. The greenhouses are really something to behold.
Yes, and the produce is almost always utterly bland and not worth buying. As a general rule of them, avoid any Dutch produce.
My son has just returned home from the US having led 38 teenagers and 3 staff on their ski/snowboard trip with a visit to New York
Apart from one of the teenagers dislocating his shoulder the trip went well but he said throughout New York the smell of weed dominated
Mind you on a sightseeing boat trip to the statue of liberty he got into conversation with the captain, discussing his work with the RNLI and the Shannon all weather lifeboat following which he was invited to take the helm of the sightseeing boat which he enjoyed immensely
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
Speaking of a husband and wife team, has anyone done this yet?
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
That is manifestly and obviously wrong. I am astonished and dismayed. That is not justice. What was the sentence?
Not been sentenced yet. Unlikely to get community service!
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
Fear Putin's wrath. Though hasn't he employed special forces here when the occasion demanded a delivery of plutonium or novichok?
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
That is manifestly and obviously wrong. I am astonished and dismayed. That is not justice. What was the sentence?
Not been sentenced yet. Unlikely to get community service!
It must be hard to be a lawyer in a case when you feel an injustice has been done. Sympathies
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
More importantly, he need to find a way out. Which is a hell of a challenge for someone elected with the help of those who are a part of the problem and as the "continuity" candidate. I don't envy him at all. If he wasn't such a conceited little sh1t I might even feel sorry for him.
As much as I want him to get his comeuppance, this is all very unseemly.
IIRC, SNP leaders can be no confidenced at Conference? Might have changed, Sturgeon fiddled a lot of rule changes to suit herself and her pals.
He won. He is entitled to a chance but he has to act. It cannot go on like this with apparently nobody in the organisation seems to know what the books really show.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
Fear Putin's wrath. Though hasn't he employed special forces here when the occasion demanded a delivery of plutonium or novichok?
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
Fear Putin's wrath. Though hasn't he employed special forces here when the occasion demanded a delivery of plutonium or novichok?
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
More importantly, he need to find a way out. Which is a hell of a challenge for someone elected with the help of those who are a part of the problem and as the "continuity" candidate. I don't envy him at all. If he wasn't such a conceited little sh1t I might even feel sorry for him.
As much as I want him to get his comeuppance, this is all very unseemly.
IIRC, SNP leaders can be no confidenced at Conference? Might have changed, Sturgeon fiddled a lot of rule changes to suit herself and her pals.
He won. He is entitled to a chance but he has to act. It cannot go on like this with apparently nobody in the organisation seems to know what the books really show.
Yes. His only hope is to turn on his "supporters" and sack or suspend everyone under suspicion. Total reboot. Hose down the stables entirely. This of course includes Sturgeon. I cannot see him having the brains or bollocks to bring off such a difficult thing, so he is doomed
My son has just returned home from the US having led 38 teenagers and 3 staff on their ski/snowboard trip with a visit to New York
Apart from one of the teenagers dislocating his shoulder the trip went well but he said throughout New York the smell of weed dominated
Mind you on a sightseeing boat trip to the statue of liberty he got into conversation with the captain, discussing his work with the RNLI and the Shannon all weather lifeboat following which he was invited to take the helm of the sightseeing boat which he enjoyed immensely
Best example of that sort of thing I have come across was a Sheriff in this country who was on some liaison course with the US as a result of which he was appointed an honorary Marshall. On his way home he was approached by staff at the airport and asked whether he was carrying a firearm onto the plane. When he said no he was asked if he wanted one.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
They seem slightly paralysed at the moment. If it had anything to do with me I would be more interested in instructing a forensic accountant than an auditor. Where did the money go? How much was there? What was it used for and on whose instructions? The absurd husband and wife team having such control over what was allegedly a democratic institution has left a horrific legacy that needs to be got a grip of.
HY either doesn't have the brains for this, or doesn't want to know. He's clearly hoping an internal review, where they clear themselves, will cut it.
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
More importantly, he need to find a way out. Which is a hell of a challenge for someone elected with the help of those who are a part of the problem and as the "continuity" candidate. I don't envy him at all. If he wasn't such a conceited little sh1t I might even feel sorry for him.
As much as I want him to get his comeuppance, this is all very unseemly.
IIRC, SNP leaders can be no confidenced at Conference? Might have changed, Sturgeon fiddled a lot of rule changes to suit herself and her pals.
He won. He is entitled to a chance but he has to act. It cannot go on like this with apparently nobody in the organisation seems to know what the books really show.
*A lot of people in the organisation claiming that they don't know what the books show, officer
My son has just returned home from the US having led 38 teenagers and 3 staff on their ski/snowboard trip with a visit to New York
Apart from one of the teenagers dislocating his shoulder the trip went well but he said throughout New York the smell of weed dominated
Mind you on a sightseeing boat trip to the statue of liberty he got into conversation with the captain, discussing his work with the RNLI and the Shannon all weather lifeboat following which he was invited to take the helm of the sightseeing boat which he enjoyed immensely
Best example of that sort of thing I have come across was a Sheriff in this country who was on some liaison course with the US as a result of which he was appointed an honorary Marshall. On his way home he was approached by staff at the airport and asked whether he was carrying a firearm onto the plane. When he said no he was asked if he wanted one.
In 1975 our five year old son had a toy gun with caps in the bag he took onto the plane. It was confiscated and held in the cockpit for the journey, then returned to him when we landed. He was as proud as Punch
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Was it appealed?
The fact that she asked for “a shag” 24 hours after the incident suggests that she didn’t - at the time - regard it as an assault?
Twitter seems to be partaking of a conversation as to whether or not Channel 4's Naked Education programme tonight was right to show naked adults to 14 year olds.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
The “Department” of Debt Interest, currently bigger than defence and education combined.
Not quite; here's the pie chart from the Spring 2023 budget;
A lot of the spending on the right hand of the pie simply is what it is. Pensioners gonna pension. The NHS is generally accepted to be pretty good at cost control. The left hand side of the chart is pretty low-fat. Not perfect, but pretty low on things that can be cut without removing services.
Bottom line is that we've had four decades at least where, looking back, it might have been better to pay more tax than we did. We spent various windfalls (favourable dependency ratio, North Sea hydrocarbons, privatisation receipts, end of Cold War Peace Dividend and so on) as if they were recurring boons, not a one off bonus.
And now the music has stopped, and I'm not entirely sure where the money went.
Goodness only knows how we get out of this politically, because any party campaigning on that basis will get utterly tonked at the polls. Normally it takes complete catastophic failure of a nation to shake it out of delusions like this, and I'd rather not live through one of those, and I'm too old to emigrate.
Debt interest is a shit sandwich.
I think we spend far too much on social protection, for what it's worth.
That’s very largely pensions though. Which both main parties are committed to ratcheting up at the expense of workers.
About a third of the social security budget, half the health budget and the bulk of the social care budget is devoted to pensioners. Based on the figures given in the chart previously quoted, that puts the direct cost to the state of looking after old people at around £280bn per year.
Now, consider next that...
*accounting for housing costs (and yes, many pensioners still rent, but most are outright owner-occupiers,) the average pensioner household already has a higher income than the average working household *increases to the state pension, courtesy of the triple lock, will be greater than wage rises in most years, so that gap will continue to grow *taxation of earned incomes is considerably heavier than that of assets, especially properties and inheritances *both Labour and the Tories will keep ramping the taxation of earned incomes to fund pensioner benefits, whilst leaving assets well alone *the mean age of the population is still creeping inexorably upwards
The political class, collectively, is so bloody terrified of the grey vote that it will do nothing about any of this.
We, as a society, have basically had our chips.
True, but playing devil's advocate, is anyone really jealous of the old?
I might be of those retired and having fun in their early 60s but, generally, if you're retired you have physical ailments, and constraints, less income, can't do what you used to do, with death around the corner. Not sure it's that fun.
I'd far rather be young.
It's not about jealousy of the old, it's about the fact that a society primarily focussed on their needs and wishes is doomed to failure.
Actually Leon makes a good point about Japan upthread, maybe “doomed to failure” is too strong.
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
It's worth remembering that back in the 80s, the Economist was expecting the response to the population pyramid changes to be robots and automation. The era of cheap labour slowed that down - as well as robots not being up to the task. Combined with "AI", we are now looking at machines that can directly replace people in a much wider range of activities.
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
Isn't that already the case in the Netherlands?
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
Robots pick soft fruit in the Netherlands? Didn't know that.
That sounds like one of those lines between Travolta and Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction.
Twitter seems to be partaking of a conversation as to whether or not Channel 4's Naked Education programme tonight was right to show naked adults to 14 year olds.
Are there any 14 year olds in the country to whom a naked adult on screen would be a first?
Everyone means well, but jings if this isn't one of the gloomiest, most depressing PB forum threads I can remember for a while, for all sorts of topics discussed.
Better watch some Taskmaster to try and anaesthetise myself somewhat.
The reason is simple. Many of the lefties are getting nervous that the poll leads have stalled and may be on the turn. Hence the ridiculous outrage about some Greek museum charging UK visitors but not those from the EU. Meanwhile most of us righties are still gloom ridden because the polls have not moved nearly enough. I return to the Spain tomorrow but have seen little sign anywhere throughout my trip to the NE of the downtrodden masses struggling to eat out from dawn to dusk or pile into the shopping centres/cafes/bars and enjoy Easter. My final treat today was Durham centre and the Cathedral - a true gem for the area busy with, mostly local, visitors and glorious scones in the tea shop filled with jam and cream. Been a great trip! And now to bad b4 the doom mongers pile in. Goodnight to all!
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
That is manifestly and obviously wrong. I am astonished and dismayed. That is not justice. What was the sentence?
David's tales of justice up here are truly hair raising.
A very fancy brand new minibus sat outside Chris Law's office in Lochee, Dundee for over a year. It was painted in SNP colours and logos. It never seemed to move, it was always parked in exactly the same place. It's gone now but it was a hell of an expensive bill board.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
I don't buy the story. What exactly are 50 UK special forces doing?
A very fancy brand new minibus sat outside Chris Law's office in Lochee, Dundee for over a year. It was painted in SNP colours and logos. It never seemed to move, it was always parked in exactly the same place. It's gone now but it was a hell of an expensive bill board.
Did they buy a fleet?
On another note, the National's front pages though this crisis are hilarious. Very strong Morning Star 'GDR unveils new reforms package' energy.
Twitter seems to be partaking of a conversation as to whether or not Channel 4's Naked Education programme tonight was right to show naked adults to 14 year olds.
Our Nuffield Science textbook from circa 1970 had a black and white photograph of a naked man and a naked woman. It didn't seem particularly salacious even back then.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
I don't buy the story. What exactly are 50 UK special forces doing?
You've probably got much better ideas than I do but training is perhaps the most obvious thing, especially with western kit. The Americans don't seem to be challenging the validity of the leak.
On topic: Two bits from US experience: First: "SEATTLE - Despite the progress made processing sexual assault kits, Washington's large backlog remains, according to a report from the state auditor.
Two follow-ups: We learned that the Seattle Times knew about the accusations in Oregon, but didn't share that knowledge with public, in a timely way.
Second, and this is terribly sad. When one of his accusers was paid a large sum in damages, the young man took some of that money, bought illegal drugs, and overdosed, killing himself.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The whole of our criminal justice system is based on "beyond reasonable doubt". "Balance of probabilities" is reserved for civil cases.
I don't think many people would like to face a criminal justice charge based on the balance of probabilities.
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
...of course, you have to hope you can correctly identify that other location. I'm currently listening to the 2012 Reith lectures which were by conservative-leaning economic historian Niall Ferguson. In lecture one he diagnosed the UK and other western nations as suffering from institutional decline and gradually failing to hold rule-of-law in as high esteem as it used to, and consequently declining economically too. In the Q&A afterward, somebody asked the "well, where is doing better at this?". His answer was that he would advise a young person to emigrate to a place where the rule-of-law was clearly strengthening and which was thus on the path to prosperity. His suggestion was ... Hong Kong.
Shows how even the brightest people can make rubbish predictions.
Comments
That doesn't work.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
The Libyan “Coastguard” has turned prison into a profit centre. Time to expand their operations?
Time was when indenturing criminals and sending them to the Carribean was a thing. Perhaps we could send all the sex offenders (historic and otherwise) to work on the farms in Libya?
Perhaps a good slogan would help - “Work will make you free” ?
Nevertheless, a society that generates next to no economic growth while demanding ever increasing slices of worker’s pay and conspiring to make everyday costs unaffordable is…not ideal.
The answer is for *men* to realise and understand situations they might do stuff they wouldn't ordinarily want to do, and avoid those situations. Ditto anyone who might get violent or do non-optimal stuff (e.g. drink-drive).
And for society *not* to say "well, she was tipsy", or "he was drunk; he's normally a good lad."
You are now in the twilight of your years, reduced to vindictive posturing on here and hours of moth-bothering. I don’t expect you to understand.
NEW: SNP contact Electoral Commission over “difficulty” finding replacement auditors as deadline for finances looms.
SkyNews understands accountants Johnston Carmichael resigned in Sept. Earlier the FM said it was “around Oct”.
Former auditors apparently “raised no concerns”.
https://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/1645874471121883141
"No concerns..."
I predict that the majority of soft fruit picked in the UK will be done by machine - within 5 years.
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
Wouldn’t the Feds just bail them out with temporary loans again ?
It will be a brave firm that takes this on. In the Yes Minister sense, genuinely heroic.
I knew there was more sh*te to come out but it seems to be unravelling very quickly indeed. Wonder who on the NEC is going to crack first, once they realise the extent of their liability for finances.
The UK farming industry has been slow to automate because it could get cheap labour for so many years.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-old-seat-of-henley-is-vacated-by-sitting-tory-mp-12855284
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
See my robo-cleaners in Bangkok airport, and apply that to every single sector of society
Including, I am afraid to say, the Knowledge and Creative sectors. Everyone is threatened/benefited
He's no idea what he has got himself into.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robot-farming-netherlands-dairy-automation_n_5d35a0fce4b0419fd32fe23e
I'm sure Henley would have Boris back. But first he has to decide what he wants from politics. Because it won't be the top job. And it is hard to see him getting a job even in the Cabinet. Or even sitting it out for a term at least as a minimum on the backbenches.
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
Currently slower - but the machines can work 24/7
Speed is steadily increasing.
Although, if I had to identify a single tipping point it would be this event in October 1999, so both parties are implicated. The corollary is that, if Labour do form the next government, we may well see massive changes in the age profile of political support, as pensioners are pleasantly surprised by the mollycoddling they receive from Labour chancellors.
As a matter of fact our tax burden is not high compared with other similar countries:
and though it has grown over time, it has done so just as much elsewhere:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16244795
@Gardenwalker should remember that despite his counsel of despair, hundreds of thousands of people are moving to the UK every year because they see opportunity here.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
https://youtu.be/M3SGScaShhw
https://twitter.com/michelletandler/status/1645802380804644870
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Moreover, the point, I suggest, is not just that our tax burden is higher than before, but that it is so while at the same time public services are so poor. We're paying more for less. I'd be happy to pay more for more, but I think we can all agree that paying more for less is suboptimal. Why are we paying more for less? Well, the obvious answer is because of the policies of the political party that's been in charge for the last 13 years.
You also say that our tax burden has grown "just as much elsewhere". You're right that the graphs for elsewhere show increases, but it's notable that those increases don't parallel those for the UK graph. They've gone up (and down) at different times. This erodes the argument that the UK situation today (pay more, get less) is some inevitable consequence of global challenges. I suggest what the graphs show is that Conservative governments went for short-term tax cuts at the cost of underinvesting, which has led to the situation today.
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained
President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/3/5/23621004/el-salvador-prison-bukele-ms13-barrio-18
He's brutal and draconian. The result?
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
https://elsalvadorinfo.net/nayib-bukele-approval-rate/
IIRC, SNP leaders can be no confidenced at Conference? Might have changed, Sturgeon fiddled a lot of rule changes to suit herself and her pals.
Better watch some Taskmaster to try and anaesthetise myself somewhat.
Apart from one of the teenagers dislocating his shoulder the trip went well but he said throughout New York the smell of weed dominated
Mind you on a sightseeing boat trip to the statue of liberty he got into conversation with the captain, discussing his work with the RNLI and the Shannon all weather lifeboat following which he was invited to take the helm of the sightseeing boat which he enjoyed immensely
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
Though hasn't he employed special forces here when the occasion demanded a delivery of plutonium or novichok?
The fact that she asked for “a shag” 24 hours after the incident suggests that she didn’t - at the time - regard it as an assault?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11940669/Channel-4s-Naked-Education-sparks-fury-programme-shows-adults-nude-children.html
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1645902050578841603
On another note, the National's front pages though this crisis are hilarious. Very strong Morning Star 'GDR unveils new reforms package' energy.
First: "SEATTLE - Despite the progress made processing sexual assault kits, Washington's large backlog remains, according to a report from the state auditor.
The State Auditor's Office (SAO) found the state has greatly improved tracking and processing of some 9,000 untested sexual assault kits, but the backlog still sits at around 6,000."
source: https://www.q13fox.com/news/report-washington-cleared-one-third-of-its-untested-rape-kits-but-large-backlog-remains
Why? My guess is long-running bureaucratic incompetence -- and elected officals for years not paying the attention they should to this problem.
Second: A Seattle mayor was forced, finally, to resign, after multiple accusations of statutory rape (on males): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Murray_(Washington_politician)#Child_sexual_abuse_allegations
Two follow-ups: We learned that the Seattle Times knew about the accusations in Oregon, but didn't share that knowledge with public, in a timely way.
Second, and this is terribly sad. When one of his accusers was paid a large sum in damages, the young man took some of that money, bought illegal drugs, and overdosed, killing himself.
I don't think many people would like to face a criminal justice charge based on the balance of probabilities.