The more substantive complaint against Raab - as @Richard_Nabavi has pointed out - is that he was fairly useless and achieved little. That I can accept, not the “bullying” allegations which come down to him saying “woeful”
But then that raises the question of how he lasted so long as a minister and got as high as deputy PM. He must have been good at something - sly politicking? Blackmail? Plain dumb luck?
But I suppose you could make the same accusation of many ministers. What did Theresa May ever actually do? Other than introduce that insane Equality Act? She made it all the way to number 10….
Theresa May massively cut unskilled non-EU migration.
The best answer to Raab's allegations would be for the new Minister to manage to get things done more effectively. If the policies are still what the government wants, then it clearly the main fault was Raab was ineffective.
The best answer to Raab's allegations would be for the new Minister to manage to get things done more effectively. If the policies are still what the government wants, then it clearly the main fault was Raab was ineffective.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Been busy for much of today, so missed a lot of comment. I think Raab is a bit hard done by here. He sounds difficult to work for, demanding, and frustrated that some in the civil service were obstructive.
People may say it’s very different, but was Alex Ferguson a bully?
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Yup, senior civil servants are never intimidating, no siree
Been busy for much of today, so missed a lot of comment. I think Raab is a bit hard done by here. He sounds difficult to work for, demanding, and frustrated that some in the civil service were obstructive.
People may say it’s very different, but was Alex Ferguson a bully?
Probably.
And don't get started on the tales of what some movie directors get up to (or just directors at any level). Puts me right off the idea of being an actor, so it's a convenient I'm not good looking or talented enough to be one.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
I've worked for one of the nastiest bullies you could ever hope not to meet - a man who literally threatened violence, including sexual violence, to his (the latter only female) staff if they didn't do what he wanted, and would illegally demote people for refusing to slavishly respect his bizarre orders while taking bribes to cover up safeguarding breaches and forging references for his mates who had done wrong. And it was not fun. In common with everyone else with a brain and any integrity, I walked away.
So I can understand they didn't enjoy it.
But - and this is what's bugging me - almost all civil servants I have worked with in a professional capacity have behaved towards me and my colleagues in much the same way Raab did towards them but none of them have ever been sacked afaik.
Been busy for much of today, so missed a lot of comment. I think Raab is a bit hard done by here. He sounds difficult to work for, demanding, and frustrated that some in the civil service were obstructive.
People may say it’s very different, but was Alex Ferguson a bully?
Ferguson was successful. Clubs tried copying that with abrasive Glaswegian managers, 7/20 Premier League managers all from Glasgow at one point, it did not work at all. Percentage wise it is a terrible way to manage even if a few pull it off successfully. Raab was not one of the few successful ones.
He would be hard done by if overlooked for deputy store manager at Sainsburys Local, he is not hard done by no longer being Deputy PM.
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
They are searching the report for snippets of why the civil service just needs a good kicking and everything will be hunky dory despite decades of politicians trying to kick civil servants and that approach never working.
Can someone go through the report and find a 'smoking gun' that proves that Raab would meet an ordinary definition of a bully, such that that deserves to be removed from office, rather than go through some type of performance improvement/training process? Because it just doesn't seem like that to me. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
As is the Telegraph's reporting of it, which omitted these fairly important facts: (1) he wasn't just dredging the river, he cut down a very large number of trees which absorb water and so would actually retard flooding (2) he had done this before and (3) he had been ordered to stop the work, by a court and refused.
Edit - I should point out as well his idea was to put down a hard surface nearby which would again increase flooding. So counteracting any dredging he was doing...
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
That's a clueless comment, not even worthy of the Spectator. More Unherd, or Matt Goodwin. I thought you were brighter than that.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
That's a clueless comment, not even worthy of the Spectator. More Unherd, or Matt Goodwin. I thought you were brighter than that.
@Northern_Al Can you go through the report and find the part that identifies the behaviour that is so outrageously unacceptable it justifies his immediate departure from government.
From another report it sounds like he did quite a lot of damage to trees and vegetation alongside the river so not just dredging.
I know the River Lugg very well. It is exquisite. This guy is a barbarian. He’s been attacking the riverscape for years - he got prison this time because he he’s broken the law - pointlessly tearing down trees etc - multiple times going back decades
From another report it sounds like he did quite a lot of damage to trees and vegetation alongside the river so not just dredging.
I know the River Lugg very well. It is exquisite. This guy is a barbarian. He’s been attacking the riverscape for years - he got prison this time because he he’s broken the law - pointlessly tearing down trees etc - multiple times going back decades
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
They are searching the report for snippets of why the civil service just needs a good kicking and everything will be hunky dory despite decades of politicians trying to kick civil servants and that approach never working.
Can someone go through the report and find a 'smoking gun' that proves that Raab would meet an ordinary definition of a bully, such that that deserves to be removed from office, rather than go through some type of performance improvement/training process? Because it just doesn't seem like that to me. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
If he was a low level manager in a telesales company, he would probably fit in well. Why should the role of Deputy PM be filled by someone who doesn't understand basic management without getting retrained?
Forget fairness for a second, we should not have someone so incapable in such a leadership role. If things had gone worse for Boris he would quite likely have become PM in an emergency and was not remotely up to it.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
I see we’re getting some snarky comments about Starmer’s physical appearance - a sure sign the Conservatives know they’ve had a bad day and are a bit defensive.
Farewell then to another overly assertive Deputy Prime Minister - the John Prescott de nos jours. Hardly - Raab’s problem, I suspect, was at the end he’d made too many friends and had too few friends to save him. Sunak simply decided Raab was expendable while Johnson defended Patel against her bullying allegations and she survived.
I’ve seen bullying in both the private and public sectors - to be in a work where you suffer it day after day must be close to purgatory and those who don’t work in offices probably don’t understand that.
Being a Minister isn’t the same as being a CEO - it’s different and there is a tension between the political ambition of the Minister and his/her support of the Department. That doesn’t excuse anyone from unacceptable behaviour and in my experience lashing out at subordinates is often a sign of one’s own insecurities and inadequacies.
The new DPM has managed to be grovellingly loyal to three successive Conservative leaders - he was the Party Chairman once and presided over the highly unsuccessful Conservative by-election campaigns at Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton. We can but hope he brings that level of success to the DPM job.
I imagine he’ll be more visible than Raab and the local elections in a fortnight may be his first challenge. As Mark Pack showed in his blog, the predicted seat changes usually overestimate Labour prospects and underestimate LD and the Greens - we’ll see.
Keir Starmer is getting the traditional mountain of shit dealt out to every Labour leader. He’s properly arrived.
It hasn't started yet, right wing media will do everything they can to get their darling tory party re elected, the tried and tested formula is belittle,denigrate and down right blatant lie about the leader of the labour party, sadly it usually works
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you believe in chemtrails too, in that case.
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
They are searching the report for snippets of why the civil service just needs a good kicking and everything will be hunky dory despite decades of politicians trying to kick civil servants and that approach never working.
Can someone go through the report and find a 'smoking gun' that proves that Raab would meet an ordinary definition of a bully, such that that deserves to be removed from office, rather than go through some type of performance improvement/training process? Because it just doesn't seem like that to me. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
If he was a low level manager in a telesales company, he would probably fit in well.
Or indeed a senior figure in the civil service...
I do agree with the rest of your post, incidentally. I'm just slightly amused by the irony of the situation.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
That's a clueless comment, not even worthy of the Spectator. More Unherd, or Matt Goodwin. I thought you were brighter than that.
@Northern_Al Can you go through the report and find the part that identifies the behaviour that is so outrageously unacceptable it justifies his immediate departure from government.
I've done that, thanks. Raab said he would resign if (and presumably only if) the investigation found evidence of bullying. Raab has resigned.
Not my job to cut and paste from a 48-page report, but in an earlier post I indicated the main points - evidence of unpleasant behaviour and not being truthful in the investigation. It does merit very careful reading - it's quite subtle in its defenestration.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
This is his “dredging”
Those two images are photographed from completely different places. The second image has the bridge far further away - we don't know what vegetation was removed because the cleared area is not even visible in the first image.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
I don't think prison seems necessary in this kind of offence, despite repeated and blatant action, but punishment definitely seems perfectly warranted - his personal belief about it being necessary doesn't grant him licence to ignore the law. There may have been good reason the EA had not yet acted for all we know.
If I see a crack in the road someone is supposed to get to it, and may take longer than I think is reasonable to address it, but if I rock in and tear up the road to do a half arsed job myself I'm going to be in trouble. If I destroy half the pavement in the process even more so.
So whilst as with any sentence I might disagree with what the guidelines suggest, I'm hard pressed to call it despicable that he faced consequences for lawbreaking. "Someone should have done this, so I did it in a particularly harmful way without permission" is not much of a defence.
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
Leadership which becomes more difficult to deliver if you can't put a rocket up your lazy department for failing to do their jobs. Starmer spectacularly missing the point as ever - 'cost of living crisis' is clearly the phrase du jour - he'd probably have said 'cost of living crisis' if they'd asked him his favourite dessert.
This is like Starmer during covid. "If only the PM did nebulous thing x [got a grip/focused on the issue/worked harder/demonstrated leadership]" everything would be fine.
What needs to happen in order for people to be richer? I'm fairly sure it's not down to politicians simply working harder - otherwise the Gordon Brown years would have been a land of milk and honey.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
This is his “dredging”
Those two images are photographed from completely different places. The second image has the bridge far further away - we don't know what vegetation was removed because the cleared area is not even visible in the first image.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
The bridge is visible in both photos, so hardly completely different places.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Nobody who cuts down large numbers of trees can reasonably claim to be mitigating flooding.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Yes, let's restrict the franchise to those who deserve it. Tell you what, how about we only allow those who have served in the military to vote? After all, they've shown commitment to our country. What could go wrong?
The report seems pretty fair and is hardly a hatchet job and I don’t buy the argument that this will lead to loads of new cases .
There are plenty of cabinet ministers who have not had accusations aimed at them .
It's a possibility. But in complaint situations people tend to overegg the precedent angle, when conclusions invariably hinge on precise details, events and personalities. "If it happened to me it could happen to you" sort of thing. Even people who are not arseholes would wish to err on the side of caution most of the time so as not to punish edge cases. It's like how there are wide protections on political speech in particular, including offensive speech, since you punish the offensive and it's easy to imagine that getting overused. But ultimately someone should consider how likely it is that sustained and credible complaints would arise - investigators are not, generally, stupid, and PMs can and do retain people who may be personally or professionally disagreeable if they feel the political benefits outweigh the costs. If they think the complaints are motivated by activist concern or trivial, they will say so. So even if there are loads more cases, they would be dealt with without accepting every one is serious.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
And some rules are ****ing stupid, amongst them the EU-derived Environment Agency regulations concerning dredging, which have lead to major flooding incidents that are then conveniently blamed on 'climate change', with the people who get flooded (not to mention all the creatures that drown) being the collateral damage of their malign neglect. The trial should have sought to establish whether there was a high risk of flooding, and if there were, why a dredging permit was not forthcoming. As for his other activities, we don't have his defence, only an outraged semi-literate BBC news story. I am minded to be on the side of anyone trying to use the land to grow food to feed people until I know the full facts.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
It was seen as a reference to Larry Grayson in a "all these gays are the same "way.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
This is his “dredging”
Those two images are photographed from completely different places. The second image has the bridge far further away - we don't know what vegetation was removed because the cleared area is not even visible in the first image.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
Photos taken in exactly the same place by Natural England
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Autistic people often show a tendency towards obeying rules.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
It was seen as a reference to Larry Grayson in a "all these gays are the same "way.
He probably confused him with the former soccer star.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
A friend was an NHS psychiatrist.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work 2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
It was seen as a reference to Larry Grayson in a "all these gays are the same "way.
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
It was seen as a reference to Larry Grayson in a "all these gays are the same "way.
Hmmm, if there is a popular culture quiz at any point it better have a sports round or I am scoring zero!
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Well the answer to that is to jail Extinciom Rebellion when they break the law, not to let this chap off for breaking the law. In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Yes, let's restrict the franchise to those who deserve it. Tell you what, how about we only allow those who have served in the military to vote? After all, they've shown commitment to our country. What could go wrong?
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
On the contrary the Speccie article could be disagreed with by a reasonably well informed 6 year old; the same 6 year old, along with the rest of us might do well to read the report, learn not to indulge in special pleading and reflect upon David Allen Green's thoughtful contribution:
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
A friend was an NHS psychiatrist.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work 2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
It will probably not surprise you that I would attempt a middling position. Over 20 years ago I remember a talk from a prison reform lawyer and death penalty specialist, and he was clear he never thought prison was the answer, and didn't even like the term criminal. Despite that being his thesis, he did not seem able to put together a persuasive comment about what we call or do with certain types of offenders.
I don't have fully formed views on these things, but whilst I do think the purpose of prison includes a punitive element not merely rehabilitative, I do think prison should be less common and less horrific in its conditions as sometimes reported. It's not meant to be pleasant, but I don't see that it needs to be hell on earth either. Even for awful people who belong there for a long time. That would reflect on us as a society more than them.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Autistic people often show a tendency towards obeying rules.
Nonetheless that was part of his defence
“The court has heard that Mr Price has autism which means that when rules are said to him, he is known to ignore them.
However, the prosecution say that Mr Price has been able to run a successful business for many years and is perfectly capable of making decisions. These were not 'spur of the moment decisions', it took consideration.
"In my view, it only provides him with minor mitigation," said judge Strongman.”
“John Price's previous offences
The court has heard of John Price's previous offences.
In 1998, he piled some rubble against the river bank. He was given a warning. In August 1999, he removed gravel and was challenged by officials. In July 2007, he was prosecuted for creating a dam to irrigate his potato farm and was fined. In November 2018, Mr Price re-profiled the river and created flooding embankments with material he had scraped against the river.
He was given guidance remotely and reminded of his obligations and to obtain the relevant permits. In October time, the court heard, salmon and ground trout lay their eyes; therefore, their eggs could be destroyed by the machinery.
In July 2020, he was warned about his actions.
"His failure to observe the buffer zone could only be to maximise his profits," said judge Strongman.
In November 2020, he mebarked on the works with an 18-tonne digger used. Other machinery was used to remove trees and reprofile the banks.
The bulldozer was fitted with a tracker, and it drove across the riverbed. This would have crushed the fish eggs.
"He seems to have adopted the attitude that the rules do not apply to him," said Judge Strongman.”
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Well the answer to that is to jail Extinciom Rebellion when they break the law, not to let this chap off for breaking the law. In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
This is his “dredging”
Those two images are photographed from completely different places. The second image has the bridge far further away - we don't know what vegetation was removed because the cleared area is not even visible in the first image.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
Photos taken in exactly the same place by Natural England
I am not condoning his removal of trees from the River bank, though sometimes trees do need to be removed.
However, as I have said, it is a fact that dredging is a key part of flood defence that has been virtually outlawed by the adoption of deeply damaging EU rules, which we still follow despite having left the EU.
My preferred solution would be for the River to have been dredged, within the law, with the relevant environmental considerations addressed. Clearly this did not happen, and if there is a good case that it should have happened to prevent homes being flooded, that for me is a strong mitigating factor.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Autistic people often show a tendency towards obeying rules.
Nonetheless that was part of his defence
“The court has heard that Mr Price has autism which means that when rules are said to him, he is known to ignore them.
However, the prosecution say that Mr Price has been able to run a successful business for many years and is perfectly capable of making decisions. These were not 'spur of the moment decisions', it took consideration.
"In my view, it only provides him with minor mitigation," said judge Strongman.”
“John Price's previous offences
The court has heard of John Price's previous offences.
In 1998, he piled some rubble against the river bank. He was given a warning. In August 1999, he removed gravel and was challenged by officials. In July 2007, he was prosecuted for creating a dam to irrigate his potato farm and was fined. In November 2018, Mr Price re-profiled the river and created flooding embankments with material he had scraped against the river.
He was given guidance remotely and reminded of his obligations and to obtain the relevant permits. In October time, the court heard, salmon and ground trout lay their eyes; therefore, their eggs could be destroyed by the machinery.
In July 2020, he was warned about his actions.
"His failure to observe the buffer zone could only be to maximise his profits," said judge Strongman.
In November 2020, he mebarked on the works with an 18-tonne digger used. Other machinery was used to remove trees and reprofile the banks.
The bulldozer was fitted with a tracker, and it drove across the riverbed. This would have crushed the fish eggs.
"He seems to have adopted the attitude that the rules do not apply to him," said Judge Strongman.”
He’s a nasty entitled prick and he’s fucked up a lovely curve of river and now he’s doing time. Good
It seems proper that the defence did not get much mitigation. Whether you approve of the actions he took or not it was a planned and carefully considered action, and he must encounter myriad rules all the time in order to operate. It is not very plausible that despite the detailed history he was unable to understand or unable to comply with some effort.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
I think Raab showed his colours when in what was supposed to be a tribute to Paul O'Grady, he referred to Paul Grayson. I saw Raab's smirk afterwards and I believe it was a deliberate jibe. He strikes me as the type who would undermine people with snide and demeaning comments.
How is confusing Paul OGrady with Paul Grayson demeaning? If anything I'd have thought Paul Grayson would resent it.
Right I know who Gazza is, who are these imposter Paul G's?
It was seen as a reference to Larry Grayson in a "all these gays are the same "way.
He probably confused him with the former soccer star.
Well I first thought of the former England rugby player. Who I've just googled to confirm - and yes, he did play for England. It turns out there's a cricketing Paul Grayson too. I didn't know about the football one.. To be honest, in my head Paul Grayson (rugby) was marginally more famous than Paul O Grady.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Well the answer to that is to jail Extinciom Rebellion when they break the law, not to let this chap off for breaking the law. In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
That's a gold-plated disaster for ExReb then.
As he was a Just Stop Oil protestor...
Eh, 6 of one, half a dozen of another. Even if XR would not have approved that action, there's a dozen more they would have, it's hard to figure where they'd draw the line.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
fact is that raab has been a failure in every government job he's taken on, and eventually ran out of road.
Been busy for much of today, so missed a lot of comment. I think Raab is a bit hard done by here. He sounds difficult to work for, demanding, and frustrated that some in the civil service were obstructive.
People may say it’s very different, but was Alex Ferguson a bully?
Fergie was a winner. Raab has been fortunate to be mediocre in his varied government jobs.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
A friend was an NHS psychiatrist.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work 2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
Sadly the question reduces to a philosophical, therefore unverifiable one. All boundaries between mad and bad are made up - they are social constructs. Psychs do so as much as anyone. On the whole they demedicalize psychopathy for the simple reason it is untreatable. But in ordinary language these criminals are a mad as a box of frogs. prisons are full of them.
That doesn't mean it is all wrong; but there are no unarguable positions.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
This is his “dredging”
Those two images are photographed from completely different places. The second image has the bridge far further away - we don't know what vegetation was removed because the cleared area is not even visible in the first image.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
Photos taken in exactly the same place by Natural England
I am not condoning his removal of trees from the River bank, though sometimes trees do need to be removed.
However, as I have said, it is a fact that dredging is a key part of flood defence that has been virtually outlawed by the adoption of deeply damaging EU rules, which we still follow despite having left the EU.
My preferred solution would be for the River to have been dredged, within the law, with the relevant environmental considerations addressed. Clearly this did not happen, and if there is a good case that it should have happened to prevent homes being flooded, that for me is a strong mitigating factor.
I actually sympathize with many of your feelings on this general issue. But you’ve chosen the wrong case to fight, this time. This guy is just a selfish, arrogant, greedy, vandalising dickhead and he absolutely deserves the sentence
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Well the answer to that is to jail Extinciom Rebellion when they break the law, not to let this chap off for breaking the law. In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
That's a gold-plated disaster for ExReb then.
As he was a Just Stop Oil protestor...
Eh, 6 of one, half a dozen of another. Even if XR would not have approved that action, there's a dozen more they would have, it's hard to figure where they'd draw the line.
Just don't draw that line with oil-based paints.....
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
A friend was an NHS psychiatrist.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work 2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
It will probably not surprise you that I would attempt a middling position. Over 20 years ago I remember a talk from a prison reform lawyer and death penalty specialist, and he was clear he never thought prison was the answer, and didn't even like the term criminal. Despite that being his thesis, he did not seem able to put together a persuasive comment about what we call or do with certain types of offenders.
I don't have fully formed views on these things, but whilst I do think the purpose of prison includes a punitive element not merely rehabilitative, I do think prison should be less common and less horrific in its conditions as sometimes reported. It's not meant to be pleasant, but I don't see that it needs to be hell on earth either. Even for awful people who belong there for a long time. That would reflect on us as a society more than them.
I do not think, from what I've seen, that UK prisons are not "hell on earth". Unpleasant, and probably more so than is ideal, but they are not South American style death holes. Or American style gang wars.
Prison has a function that is often forgotten about. Warehousing persistent offenders. Crime is a young mans game, usually. Some criminals keep on committing their chosen crime until they grow out of it. Some never do.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Autistic people often show a tendency towards obeying rules.
Nonetheless that was part of his defence
“The court has heard that Mr Price has autism which means that when rules are said to him, he is known to ignore them.
However, the prosecution say that Mr Price has been able to run a successful business for many years and is perfectly capable of making decisions. These were not 'spur of the moment decisions', it took consideration.
"In my view, it only provides him with minor mitigation," said judge Strongman.”
“John Price's previous offences
The court has heard of John Price's previous offences.
In 1998, he piled some rubble against the river bank. He was given a warning. In August 1999, he removed gravel and was challenged by officials. In July 2007, he was prosecuted for creating a dam to irrigate his potato farm and was fined. In November 2018, Mr Price re-profiled the river and created flooding embankments with material he had scraped against the river.
He was given guidance remotely and reminded of his obligations and to obtain the relevant permits. In October time, the court heard, salmon and ground trout lay their eyes; therefore, their eggs could be destroyed by the machinery.
In July 2020, he was warned about his actions.
"His failure to observe the buffer zone could only be to maximise his profits," said judge Strongman.
In November 2020, he mebarked on the works with an 18-tonne digger used. Other machinery was used to remove trees and reprofile the banks.
The bulldozer was fitted with a tracker, and it drove across the riverbed. This would have crushed the fish eggs.
"He seems to have adopted the attitude that the rules do not apply to him," said Judge Strongman.”
He’s a nasty entitled prick and he’s fucked up a lovely curve of river and now he’s doing time. Good
It seems proper that the defence did not get much mitigation. Whether you approve of the actions he took or not it was a planned and carefully considered action, and he must encounter myriad rules all the time in order to operate. It is not very plausible that despite the detailed history he was unable to understand or unable to comply with some effort.
It would be interesting to compare the Venn diagrams for supporters of Gary McKinnon and John Price
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Well the answer to that is to jail Extinciom Rebellion when they break the law, not to let this chap off for breaking the law. In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
That's a gold-plated disaster for ExReb then.
As he was a Just Stop Oil protestor...
:-) Meh, same difference. Entitled trust-fund Tarquins and cocks of the first water all.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
A friend was an NHS psychiatrist.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work 2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
It will probably not surprise you that I would attempt a middling position. Over 20 years ago I remember a talk from a prison reform lawyer and death penalty specialist, and he was clear he never thought prison was the answer, and didn't even like the term criminal. Despite that being his thesis, he did not seem able to put together a persuasive comment about what we call or do with certain types of offenders.
I don't have fully formed views on these things, but whilst I do think the purpose of prison includes a punitive element not merely rehabilitative, I do think prison should be less common and less horrific in its conditions as sometimes reported. It's not meant to be pleasant, but I don't see that it needs to be hell on earth either. Even for awful people who belong there for a long time. That would reflect on us as a society more than them.
I do not think, from what I've seen, that UK prisons are not "hell on earth". Unpleasant, and probably more so than is ideal, but they are not South American style death holes. Or American style gang wars.
Prison has a function that is often forgotten about. Warehousing persistent offenders. Crime is a young mans game, usually. Some criminals keep on committing their chosen crime until they grow out of it. Some never do.
The hell on earth thing was a more general point. I don't think UK prisons are anywhere near the worst that are out there, though many problems no doubt remain.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
They are searching the report for snippets of why the civil service just needs a good kicking and everything will be hunky dory despite decades of politicians trying to kick civil servants and that approach never working.
Can someone go through the report and find a 'smoking gun' that proves that Raab would meet an ordinary definition of a bully, such that that deserves to be removed from office, rather than go through some type of performance improvement/training process? Because it just doesn't seem like that to me. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
A circumstantial pattern of evidence with numerous threads will convict someone even with no smoking gun. As Thomas Cashman has recently discovered, and can reflect on for the next 42 years.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Do more research. He continuously despoiled the riverscape and the nearby land. He’s been warned charged, stopped, several times since the 1990s. He carries on doing it, this was just the most recent and outrageous example
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
Autistic people often show a tendency towards obeying rules.
Nonetheless that was part of his defence
“The court has heard that Mr Price has autism which means that when rules are said to him, he is known to ignore them.
However, the prosecution say that Mr Price has been able to run a successful business for many years and is perfectly capable of making decisions. These were not 'spur of the moment decisions', it took consideration.
"In my view, it only provides him with minor mitigation," said judge Strongman.”
“John Price's previous offences
The court has heard of John Price's previous offences.
In 1998, he piled some rubble against the river bank. He was given a warning. In August 1999, he removed gravel and was challenged by officials. In July 2007, he was prosecuted for creating a dam to irrigate his potato farm and was fined. In November 2018, Mr Price re-profiled the river and created flooding embankments with material he had scraped against the river.
He was given guidance remotely and reminded of his obligations and to obtain the relevant permits. In October time, the court heard, salmon and ground trout lay their eyes; therefore, their eggs could be destroyed by the machinery.
In July 2020, he was warned about his actions.
"His failure to observe the buffer zone could only be to maximise his profits," said judge Strongman.
In November 2020, he mebarked on the works with an 18-tonne digger used. Other machinery was used to remove trees and reprofile the banks.
The bulldozer was fitted with a tracker, and it drove across the riverbed. This would have crushed the fish eggs.
"He seems to have adopted the attitude that the rules do not apply to him," said Judge Strongman.”
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
IIRC someone did a some archeology of what people dd "back in the day" to improve drainage. Again, IIRC, it was often of the form of dredging the *middle* of the river deeper. Which left the banks, with most wildlife, fish etc alone. And improved navigation.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
That's a clueless comment, not even worthy of the Spectator. More Unherd, or Matt Goodwin. I thought you were brighter than that.
@Northern_Al Can you go through the report and find the part that identifies the behaviour that is so outrageously unacceptable it justifies his immediate departure from government.
In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
Comments
I think Raab is a bit hard done by here. He sounds difficult to work for, demanding, and frustrated that some in the civil service were obstructive.
People may say it’s very different, but was Alex Ferguson a bully?
And don't get started on the tales of what some movie directors get up to (or just directors at any level). Puts me right off the idea of being an actor, so it's a convenient I'm not good looking or talented enough to be one.
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
So I can understand they didn't enjoy it.
But - and this is what's bugging me - almost all civil servants I have worked with in a professional capacity have behaved towards me and my colleagues in much the same way Raab did towards them but none of them have ever been sacked afaik.
He would be hard done by if overlooked for deputy store manager at Sainsburys Local, he is not hard done by no longer being Deputy PM.
As is the Telegraph's reporting of it, which omitted these fairly important facts: (1) he wasn't just dredging the river, he cut down a very large number of trees which absorb water and so would actually retard flooding (2) he had done this before and (3) he had been ordered to stop the work, by a court and refused.
Edit - I should point out as well his idea was to put down a hard surface nearby which would again increase flooding. So counteracting any dredging he was doing...
I thought you were brighter than that.
There are plenty of cabinet ministers who have not had accusations aimed at them .
Forget fairness for a second, we should not have someone so incapable in such a leadership role. If things had gone worse for Boris he would quite likely have become PM in an emergency and was not remotely up to it.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws involved set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished for breaking the law (Just stop oil would presumably agree), or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
I see we’re getting some snarky comments about Starmer’s physical appearance - a sure sign the Conservatives know they’ve had a bad day and are a bit defensive.
Farewell then to another overly assertive Deputy Prime Minister - the John Prescott de nos jours. Hardly - Raab’s problem, I suspect, was at the end he’d made too many friends and had too few friends to save him. Sunak simply decided Raab was expendable while Johnson defended Patel against her bullying allegations and she survived.
I’ve seen bullying in both the private and public sectors - to be in a work where you suffer it day after day must be close to purgatory and those who don’t work in offices probably don’t understand that.
Being a Minister isn’t the same as being a CEO - it’s different and there is a tension between the political ambition of the Minister and his/her support of the Department. That doesn’t excuse anyone from unacceptable behaviour and in my experience lashing out at subordinates is often a sign of one’s own insecurities and inadequacies.
The new DPM has managed to be grovellingly loyal to three successive Conservative leaders - he was the Party Chairman once and presided over the highly unsuccessful Conservative by-election campaigns at Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton. We can but hope he brings that level of success to the DPM job.
I imagine he’ll be more visible than Raab and the local elections in a fortnight may be his first challenge. As Mark Pack showed in his blog, the predicted seat changes usually overestimate Labour prospects and underestimate LD and the Greens - we’ll see.
I do agree with the rest of your post, incidentally. I'm just slightly amused by the irony of the situation.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
Not my job to cut and paste from a 48-page report, but in an earlier post I indicated the main points - evidence of unpleasant behaviour and not being truthful in the investigation. It does merit very careful reading - it's quite subtle in its defenestration.
As I said, it should have been dredged anyway, then it could have been done more tastefully.
If I see a crack in the road someone is supposed to get to it, and may take longer than I think is reasonable to address it, but if I rock in and tear up the road to do a half arsed job myself I'm going to be in trouble. If I destroy half the pavement in the process even more so.
So whilst as with any sentence I might disagree with what the guidelines suggest, I'm hard pressed to call it despicable that he faced consequences for lawbreaking. "Someone should have done this, so I did it in a particularly harmful way without permission" is not much of a defence.
What needs to happen in order for people to be richer? I'm fairly sure it's not down to politicians simply working harder - otherwise the Gordon Brown years would have been a land of milk and honey.
His defense in court - read the reports - was that he is “autistic” so he is not able to follow rules and that’s why he breaks them. Rules being laws
In that case the court only had two choices, dispossess him of his land entirely, as he is obviously going to keep “breaking the rules” because he is “autistic”. Or put him in jail so he has no chance to ruin any more countryside, and hope the punishment is a big enough deterrent to him (and others)
The judge quite correctly decided the “autistic” defense was surely a load of contradictory bollocks - despite being autistic he manages to be a successful businessman - and chose the only other alternative: jail.
For a while she was involved with a major prison reform charity. She decided in the end that they were quite worrying people. They believed that no-one should be in prison. The way they rationalised this was
1) Minor offences - prison doesn't work
2) Major crimes against persons - obviously they are mentally ill.
She found it curious how angry some of them became when she pointed out that various of the criminals she had met, as part of her work with the charity, were quite clearly sane but nasty people.
She found the idea of medicalising all vaguely serious crime quite appalling. For one thing she was cognisant of the horrible misuse of psychiatrists to medicalise "problems" in dictatorial regimes.
In both cases, it's not a first offence nor done from a position of ignorance of the potential cobsequences.
Off thread, I am ofd to Sheffield for the snooker tomorrow. Every single person I have mentioned this to has mentioned the ER protestor. Which I suppose they would say justifies their actions. But also, every single person I have mentioned it to has, unprompted, offered some fairly negative views of them and the protestor in particular and the environmental movement in general. No "but of course I think the cause is important" or anything like that. A small unscientufic sample but the impression I get is that they do their cause much more harm than good.
Flores died on the way up.
https://davidallengreen.com/2023/04/the-significance-of-the-resignation-of-dominic-raab/
I don't have fully formed views on these things, but whilst I do think the purpose of prison includes a punitive element not merely rehabilitative, I do think prison should be less common and less horrific in its conditions as sometimes reported. It's not meant to be pleasant, but I don't see that it needs to be hell on earth either. Even for awful people who belong there for a long time. That would reflect on us as a society more than them.
You think every new Labour leader is unfairly treated?
“The court has heard that Mr Price has autism which means that when rules are said to him, he is known to ignore them.
However, the prosecution say that Mr Price has been able to run a successful business for many years and is perfectly capable of making decisions. These were not 'spur of the moment decisions', it took consideration.
"In my view, it only provides him with minor mitigation," said judge Strongman.”
“John Price's previous offences
The court has heard of John Price's previous offences.
In 1998, he piled some rubble against the river bank. He was given a warning.
In August 1999, he removed gravel and was challenged by officials.
In July 2007, he was prosecuted for creating a dam to irrigate his potato farm and was fined.
In November 2018, Mr Price re-profiled the river and created flooding embankments with material he had scraped against the river.
He was given guidance remotely and reminded of his obligations and to obtain the relevant permits. In October time, the court heard, salmon and ground trout lay their eyes; therefore, their eggs could be destroyed by the machinery.
In July 2020, he was warned about his actions.
"His failure to observe the buffer zone could only be to maximise his profits," said judge Strongman.
In November 2020, he mebarked on the works with an 18-tonne digger used. Other machinery was used to remove trees and reprofile the banks.
The bulldozer was fitted with a tracker, and it drove across the riverbed. This would have crushed the fish eggs.
"He seems to have adopted the attitude that the rules do not apply to him," said Judge Strongman.”
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23469306.john-price-jailed-bulldozing-lugg-riverbank/
He’s a nasty entitled prick and he’s fucked up a lovely curve of river and now he’s doing time. Good
As he was a Just Stop Oil protestor...
However, as I have said, it is a fact that dredging is a key part of flood defence that has been virtually outlawed by the adoption of deeply damaging EU rules, which we still follow despite having left the EU.
My preferred solution would be for the River to have been dredged, within the law, with the relevant environmental considerations addressed. Clearly this did not happen, and if there is a good case that it should have happened to prevent homes being flooded, that for me is a strong mitigating factor.
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
That doesn't mean it is all wrong; but there are no unarguable positions.
Not quite up there with 'We All Sign On'
That's Nigel Lawson to you and me.
https://order-order.com/2023/04/21/osbornes-brain-looking-to-transplant-to-parliament/
Prison has a function that is often forgotten about. Warehousing persistent offenders. Crime is a young mans game, usually. Some criminals keep on committing their chosen crime until they grow out of it. Some never do.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
Is that right?
Para 176 2b
In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
Para 129 is also worth a read.
Steve
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/1649469490638274560
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life