Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sentence first – verdict afterwards – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,128
edited May 2023 in General
imageSentence first – verdict afterwards – politicalbetting.com

It is again time to review what the “intellectually challenged from the neck up” party (© Joanna Cherry) – or the SNP as it is usually known – is up to. Having finally found an auditor (though, rather embarrassingly for a pro-independence party, there was not one auditor anywhere in Scotland willing or able to take on the job) the Holyrood government has decided to reform the Scottish criminal justice system. In one of his previous roles as Justice Minister, the current First Minister introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 – an Act which very many groups have described as having a chilling effect on free speech, criminalising as it does expressions of opinion in the privacy of one’s home. It has proved so contentious that more than 2 years after being passed, it has yet to come into force. 

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Excellent piece and great final line.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Ooh was tha a first?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Excellent piece and great final line.

    😁.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    GIN1138 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "@JeffreyPeel

    Andrew Bridgen announces that he'll be taking legal action against @MattHancock in relation to defamatory statements made in the House of Commons."

    https://twitter.com/JeffreyPeel/status/1656234476249260032

    I thought MPs were protected against this when they speak in the Commons chamber?

    Now everyone knows I'm not a Hancock fan
    "I don't mind giving a reasonable amount, but a pint! That's very nearly an armful!"
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    the “intellectually challenged from the neck up” party. lol.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Ooh
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,830
    When headlines get cut short..


  • DialupDialup Posts: 561
    I too like cocaine
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    Polish PM says that he supports the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-morawiecki-jestem-zwolennikiem-kary-smierci,nId,6768946
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,205
    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    The problem with Scotland is, they're so wonderfully liberal and progressive that they need to also be incredibly authoritarian and despotic to maintain their liberally progressive paradise.

    It's sort of a corollary to Popper's paradox of tolerance.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    I cannot find the reference, but I read somewhere that in the past, Judges were allowed to ask the Jury their reasoning, and send them back in to deliberate again, with additional instructions. The case cited was from 1697 though...
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662

    Polish PM says that he supports the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-morawiecki-jestem-zwolennikiem-kary-smierci,nId,6768946

    Well he is a loon then..
  • carnforth said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    I cannot find the reference, but I read somewhere that in the past, Judges were allowed to ask the Jury their reasoning, and send them back in to deliberate again, with additional instructions. The case cited was from 1697 though...
    Section 20D of the Juries Act 1974 prohibits disclosure from jurors. The act applies only in England and Wales.

    20D Offence: disclosing jury's deliberations

    (1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—

    (a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or

    (b)to solicit or obtain such information,

    subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.

    (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

    (3)Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited May 2023
    Great article. Especially as it’s not from a crude “men’s rights” perspective, but a legal one. From a woman who cares about women’s rights. The SNP’s proposals are clearly deeply problematic. I don’t know what the solution is, however.

    Seems to me, in the broad sweep of history, we ditched religious marriage as the mechanism for establishing sexual consent, and haven’t really figured out what to replace it with. Not sure lawyers, the legal system and, ultimately, our current crop of politicians have the answers.

    I think every society needs a coherent, easily understood - and broadly considered “fair” mechanism for establishing sexual consent, to function.

    Any ideas, anyone?

    Thanks again, @Cyclefree your output on here is outstanding.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    That moment when your manager fixes an issue you report and overwrites all your work for the past two days at the same time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Is the consent of the accused needed for a case to enter the pilot?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    Yes it's clumsy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    I think Cyclefree's point about the inadequacy of investigations is the strongest single argument around this.

    Whether or not juries are subject to bias will always be contentious, but is an extremely difficult area objectively to research - and the question she raises about judges being subject to their own biases is eminently reasonable.

    FWIW, what evidence we have suggests that jury bias isn't really the issue.
    Juries convict defendants for rape more often than acquit
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit

    What's beyond question is the patchy - or worse - provision of police investigation, and the enormous delays rape cases are subject to.
    Doing something about that would, naturally, involve a large commitment of additional resources. But such an effort would unquestionably be fair to both alleged victims and perpetrators.

    Ostensibly easy fixes like this one are no substitute for that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    Some men are intellectually challenged from the waist down.

    The male body is badly designed with a brain and a penis and only enough blood supply for one to operate at any one time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    I can't make this up.

    Rep. George Santos R-NY is charged with unemployment benefits fraud.

    The House is slated to vote this week on a bill to help states recover fraudulent COVID unemployment payments.

    **Santos is a co-sponsor of that bill.**

    https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1656300093362823168
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited May 2023

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    The idea of verdicts requiring an explanation is an interesting one. We've all at some point reacted to the verdict in a trial we've been following with "Wow. What on earth were the jury thinking?" Usually we never find out.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    JK Rowling described her treatment as 'Modern McCarthyism'. If not a tautology a criminal waste of a word.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    What meaning was she aiming for? That its heart is in the right place?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575

    carnforth said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    I cannot find the reference, but I read somewhere that in the past, Judges were allowed to ask the Jury their reasoning, and send them back in to deliberate again, with additional instructions. The case cited was from 1697 though...
    Section 20D of the Juries Act 1974 prohibits disclosure from jurors. The act applies only in England and Wales.

    20D Offence: disclosing jury's deliberations

    (1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—

    (a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or

    (b)to solicit or obtain such information,

    subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.

    (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

    (3)Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
    One can see the reasons for this but its great drawback is that it prevents proper academic research on juries. Remember that juries have convicted in all miscarriages of justice, so we do desperately need to understand better, but their abolition on a whim ought to be outrageous.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    God, this is horrific.

    A woman who lost her baby during pregnancy has spoken of the trauma of being fined for claiming the free prescriptions available to expectant mothers.

    Sadie Hawkes, 33, from Leeds, miscarried before she received a maternity exemption certificate entitling her to free medication for the duration of her pregnancy.

    She was then sent a letter demanding £9.35 for medication she had been given the week before her miscarriage – along with a fine of £46.75 for claiming it for free.

    Ms Hawkes, a veterinary nurse, was told she could not apply for a retrospective exemption because she was no longer pregnant.

    "I rang them up straight away - explained I've lost my baby and assumed they'll say 'that's fine, don't worry'," she said.

    "[But] just the way she spoke to me - it's actually disgusting. She said I had to prove I was pregnant, which meant me having to go to my doctor's and get the notes. That was traumatic."

    Maternity exemption certificates are only issued 12 weeks into pregnancy, but can take longer.

    As many as one in three pregnant women never receive one. Many eligible patients are unaware of the requirement until they receive a fine, usually months later.

    Under government rules, registration can only be backdated by a month, leaving women facing charges even after providing proof of their pregnancy dates.

    Ms Hawkes' fine was waived after she challenged the demand, but she was still expected to pay for the prescription.

    Nicola Good, another woman who was sent a fine after miscarrying, had to complain repeatedly before the charge was dropped.


    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-05-10/expectant-mum-who-lost-baby-fined-for-claiming-free-medication
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    I bet this will give Rishi and Suella ideas as they crackdown on the right to protest.

    Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on Wednesday said that internet services across the country will remain suspended for an indefinite period.

    The telecommunication authority confirmed that the decision to block mobile broadband services was taken on the directives of the Ministry of Interior.

    A day earlier, the services were shutdown as protests erupted after Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s arrest in Al-Qadir Trust case.

    Moreover, major social media sites including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are also reportedly down for many users in Pakistan as they are unable to access these platforms since yesterday.

    Videos of violent protests were shared widely on social media platforms after unrest flared up following the former prime minister’s arrest, after which mobile broadband services were blocked.

    The PTA spokesperson had said that the regulatory authority was also receiving reports of social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, being down. However, these reports could not be confirmed, she added.

    Sources told Geo News that “unwarranted” clips of the protests were shared on social media after which various platforms started experiencing disruptions around 8pm on Tuesday, causing problems for citizens.


    https://www.geo.tv/latest/486535-internet-service-in-pakistan-to-remain-suspended-for-indefinite-period-pta
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141
    Can the SNP leadership actually feed and dress themselves?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828
    Thanks for the interesting header.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851

    Polish PM says that he supports the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-morawiecki-jestem-zwolennikiem-kary-smierci,nId,6768946

    Do get paid to grub around EU dustbins? Or is it just a hobby?

    What he said was that if it wasn't against EU law he might consider it. That could be applied to half the Tory Party and even that's not interesting
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
    Imagine being a judge who tries criminal cases, and probably has to deal with a score of utterly revolting and depraved cases during his or her career.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
    One interesting point from this piece is that half of jurors show symptoms of PTSD etc stress for at least a short time - not just nasty violence cases but the very jury process itself. Though the violent stuff is itself a major issue.

    The other point it makes is whether to debrief with a judge or mental health pro. Prsesumably, insofar as it touched on the doings in the jury room, the latter would be illegal? Indeed, the former too?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202211/jury-duty-verdicts-and-vicarious-trauma
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    The idea of verdicts requiring an explanation is an interesting one. We've all at some point reacted to the verdict in a trial we've been following with "Wow. What on earth were the jury thinking?" Usually we never find out.
    It's fruitless to think that unless you've been in court and heard all the evidence yourself. Juries may get it wrong sometimes, but not half as much as someone who's just read the headline and half a paragraph in some fucking tabloid and thinks they know exactly what happened.
    I generally agree your point and avoid second guessing Juries but sometimes there's one comes along that truly, objectively, is bizarre. OJ for maybe the most obvious example.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Nigelb said:

    I think Cyclefree's point about the inadequacy of investigations is the strongest single argument around this.

    Whether or not juries are subject to bias will always be contentious, but is an extremely difficult area objectively to research - and the question she raises about judges being subject to their own biases is eminently reasonable.

    FWIW, what evidence we have suggests that jury bias isn't really the issue.
    Juries convict defendants for rape more often than acquit
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit

    What's beyond question is the patchy - or worse - provision of police investigation, and the enormous delays rape cases are subject to.
    Doing something about that would, naturally, involve a large commitment of additional resources. But such an effort would unquestionably be fair to both alleged victims and perpetrators.

    Ostensibly easy fixes like this one are no substitute for that.

    Yes, agree on this point in particular. The impression I've got is that it's more to do with getting to trial in the first place rather than what happens in the courtroom.
  • Have we done today's Westminster YouGov poll release - (3-4 May data so pre locals).

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023

    C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
    One interesting point from this piece is that half of jurors show symptoms of PTSD etc stress for at least a short time - not just nasty violence cases but the very jury process itself. Though the violent stuff is itself a major issue.

    The other point it makes is whether to debrief with a judge or mental health pro. Prsesumably, insofar as it touched on the doings in the jury room, the latter would be illegal? Indeed, the former too?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202211/jury-duty-verdicts-and-vicarious-trauma
    If I ever get called for jury service I hope it’s going to be something like a cheeky crime caper - say a jewel heist foiled in the dead of night through a sting operation. With defendants called things like Harry “the sledgehammer” Evans and Roy the locksmith.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
    Imagine being a judge who tries criminal cases, and probably has to deal with a score of utterly revolting and depraved cases during his or her career.
    Yes. And criminal lawyers generally. Also the police. But juries are normal people plucked out of their lives for the duration and dropped right in it. This is especially tough, I feel, if it's one of those cases. What are the rules for serving? Can you turn it down if you feel you're not up to it?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    From the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association:

    The following faculties have so far confirmed they will be boycotting juryless courts.

    Aberdeen, Airdrie, Ayr, Borders, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Hamilton, Highland & Moray, Paisley, Perth and West Lothian.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,465

    Polish PM says that he supports the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-morawiecki-jestem-zwolennikiem-kary-smierci,nId,6768946

    So? Mrs Thatcher was pro-capital punishment and PM for 11 years . It didn't come back.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851
    edited May 2023
    OT. I see the new Deltapoll shows another Sunak nosedive.

    Surely it an only be a matter of time before they begin another hunt for a winning leader

    I heard Robert Jenrick on the one o'clock news. The nasty party really are back with a vengeance
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    The idea of verdicts requiring an explanation is an interesting one. We've all at some point reacted to the verdict in a trial we've been following with "Wow. What on earth were the jury thinking?" Usually we never find out.
    It's fruitless to think that unless you've been in court and heard all the evidence yourself. Juries may get it wrong sometimes, but not half as much as someone who's just read the headline and half a paragraph in some fucking tabloid and thinks they know exactly what happened.
    Sure - I generally agree your point and avoid second guessing Juries - but sometimes there's one comes along that truly, objectively, is bizarre. OJ for maybe the most obvious example.
    I know nothing about the OJ case other there was something about a glove that didn't fit. I've no clue how important it was to the case. It seems to have been the element of the trial that got the media attention, but that says nothing.
    He was slam dunk guilty but the jury found otherwise. The detailed evidence got kind of overrode by a cocktail of celebrity and racial politics.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blair wanted to get rid of juries for big fraud trials. I remember him using the word "nobbled" in the House of Commons and for some reason it made me laugh.

    I can see the arguments for getting rid of juries for fraud trials, some of them take ages (some have taken two years) and it is unrealistic to expect jurors to give up their time for so long.

    Then there's the complexity angle.
    I've often wondered about Juries for particularly distressing crimes. Eg the one recently where the baby boy was ... well it's hard to even think about ... that one. Cases like this must take a terrible toll on the 12 members of the public charged with immersing themselves in it.
    One interesting point from this piece is that half of jurors show symptoms of PTSD etc stress for at least a short time - not just nasty violence cases but the very jury process itself. Though the violent stuff is itself a major issue.

    The other point it makes is whether to debrief with a judge or mental health pro. Prsesumably, insofar as it touched on the doings in the jury room, the latter would be illegal? Indeed, the former too?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202211/jury-duty-verdicts-and-vicarious-trauma
    Yes I imagine the process itself can be claustrophobic and deeply challenging. Some will handle it better than others. I've never been called and I used to wish I would be. Not so sure now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    Particularly when it's a party of which Cherry has been a vital component (in her own head at least) for several years. Presumably she thought Ash Regan was the one to return intellectual heft to the SNP.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851

    Have we done today's Westminster YouGov poll release - (3-4 May data so pre locals).

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023

    C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7

    I do believe we haven't! The PB narrative has moved on. We're now on "how long before Labour's lead moves into single figures"

    It might be a long wait.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    Roger said:

    Have we done today's Westminster YouGov poll release - (3-4 May data so pre locals).

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023

    C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7

    I do believe we haven't! The PB narrative has moved on. We're now on "how long before Labour's lead moves into single figures"

    It might be a long wait.
    The next step in the cycle is the phase where we reverse the headline numbers and overanalyse in exquisite detail why the Tory Party is 17 points ahead, for unstated reasons, due to support from an undefined group, at an undetermined point in the future.

    That's where PB really excels.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Roger said:

    Have we done today's Westminster YouGov poll release - (3-4 May data so pre locals).

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023

    C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7

    I do believe we haven't! The PB narrative has moved on. We're now on "how long before Labour's lead moves into single figures"

    It might be a long wait.
    Don't worry, BigJohnOwls will be on shortly to explain.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Roger said:

    OT. I see the new Deltapoll shows another Sunak nosedive.

    Surely it an only be a matter of time before they begin another hunt for a winning leader

    I heard Robert Jenrick on the one o'clock news. The nasty party really are back with a vengeance

    Interesting poll; Labour on 47% to Cons 28% (SKSFPE etc.); net +11 favourability for Starmer to -11 for Sunak. The 'don't knows' for Starmer seem to be shrinking too.

    I wonder how much cash Hands has manged to raise from his poorly worded email? It'll be interesting to see if any major donors switch horses soon.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    algarkirk said:

    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.

    I too thought conviction rates in rape trials were much lower than for other serious crimes of violence but the data linked above (Nigel's post) seems to contradict this.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    Cyclefree said:

    From the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association:

    The following faculties have so far confirmed they will be boycotting juryless courts.

    Aberdeen, Airdrie, Ayr, Borders, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Hamilton, Highland & Moray, Paisley, Perth and West Lothian.

    Am I right in assuming that anyone convicted in one of these juryless trials will have the right to appeal up to the Supreme Court in London? I would hope and expect that a lot of convictions will be deemed unsafe.

    The problem is that by making the system inherently unsafe they could actually end up with a lot more guilty defendents ultimately goingfree on appeal.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Isn't AI supposed to be doing it now?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Had to check the date, but no,

    This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    carnforth said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    I cannot find the reference, but I read somewhere that in the past, Judges were allowed to ask the Jury their reasoning, and send them back in to deliberate again, with additional instructions. The case cited was from 1697 though...
    Was that before or after the Penn case that established the sanctity Jury decisions?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.

    I too thought conviction rates in rape trials were much lower than for other serious crimes of violence but the data linked above (Nigel's post) seems to contradict this.
    Depends to what extent the Procurator Fiscal or the rUK equivalent is only picking the best cases to go to court. No idea if that is happening.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    edited May 2023

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry as well then. :)
  • Roger said:

    Have we done today's Westminster YouGov poll release - (3-4 May data so pre locals).

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023

    C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7

    I do believe we haven't! The PB narrative has moved on. We're now on "how long before Labour's lead moves into single figures"

    It might be a long wait.
    And another from BMG research, it was part of their Monarchy poll - table 6 https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/10-05-2023-The-i-published-tables-April-2023.xlsx

    C29, L43, LD11, S3, PC1, Ref5, G6. Again 3-4 May data so pre locals.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Great piece by Ms Cyclefree, as so often.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry a well then. :)
    Note the subtlety - they are keeping university trained ones to act as physicians for the private market. Mere 'surgeon apothecaries' will do for the hoi polloi.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry a well then. :)
    And the pensions issue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    For life experience, you mean, or because unis will train them better technically? Not sure the latter has to apply. Eg if you have top A levels and then combine work experience with study in some non-uni setting I can see that this might produce good doctors?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    Great article Ms @Cyclefree .

    A more trivial question, and perhaps one you may have been asked before (driven by my curiosity about people's nom de plumes): Are you without a bicycle or do you like to cycle without inhibition or, perhaps, has your washing machine broken (in which case I recommend Calgon)?

    I know, I am losing it!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    edited May 2023
    kinabalu said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    For life experience, you mean, or because unis will train them better technically? Not sure the latter has to apply. Eg if you have top A levels and then combine work experience with study in some non-uni setting I can see that this might produce good doctors?
    There is something to be said for seeing how folk interact at an early stage - benefits both sides before they go too far. Mrs C did quite a bit of voluntary work with old folk when considering what university degree to go for. She went into another field, but to this day has much more sympathy and understanding with the old than many of us do.

    But there are other ways to achieve that specific aim.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    An acquaintance of my wife has just been lauding this idea on social media, just below her posts condemning pre-criming Republican protestors.

    Justice is an irregular verb.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283

    “Intellectually challenged from the neck up” is a crap line. It’s tautological nonsense. I think less of Joanna Cherry today.

    Particularly when it's a party of which Cherry has been a vital component (in her own head at least) for several years. Presumably she thought Ash Regan was the one to return intellectual heft to the SNP.
    She has perhaps become aware of what many of us have known for many years that nationalism as a philosophy is something that can only be adhered to by those who are “Intellectually challenged from the neck up”.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    Scott_xP said:

    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff

    They begged me but I declined too.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,171
    Cyclefree said:

    From the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association:

    The following faculties have so far confirmed they will be boycotting juryless courts.

    Aberdeen, Airdrie, Ayr, Borders, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Hamilton, Highland & Moray, Paisley, Perth and West Lothian.

    I hope every faculty in Scotland does the same thing.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488

    carnforth said:

    A thought-provoking article. Thanks, Ms Free.

    A question though.

    "without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."

    I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?

    (Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)

    I cannot find the reference, but I read somewhere that in the past, Judges were allowed to ask the Jury their reasoning, and send them back in to deliberate again, with additional instructions. The case cited was from 1697 though...
    Was that before or after the Penn case that established the sanctity Jury decisions?
    This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel's_Case
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    A
    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry a well then. :)
    Note the subtlety - they are keeping university trained ones to act as physicians for the private market. Mere 'surgeon apothecaries' will do for the hoi polloi.
    “the hoi polloi”

    Throw him to the Head Count!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    Scott_xP said:

    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully
    Pulpstar's Cat

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff

    There's one candidate on the Hinting list that excites the imagination
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    For life experience, you mean, or because unis will train them better technically? Not sure the latter has to apply. Eg if you have top A levels and then combine work experience with study in some non-uni setting I can see that this might produce good doctors?
    There is something to be said for seeing how folk interact at an early stage - benefits both sides before they go too far. Mrs C did quite a bit of voluntary work with old folk when considering what university degree to go for. She went into another field, but to this day has much more sympathy and understanding with the old than many of us do.

    But there are other ways to achieve that specific aim.
    Maybe a plus for the idea is it might help more young people from poorer non-professional backgrounds into medicine? Those who are clever enough but are put off uni by the cost of it and the debt you have to take on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    More than half of adults aged 24 or under in England and Wales live with their parents, according to census figures.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the number of families with adult children living with their parents rose 13.6 per cent in the decade between 2011 and 2021, to nearly 3.8 million.

    Across England and Wales over that decade, the number of 20 to 24-year-olds living with their parents rose from 44.5 per cent to just over half, or 51.2 per cent, with the total number of adult children living with their parents increasing 14.7 per cent, from about 4.2 million to about 4.9 million.

    The average age of adult children living with their parents in England and Wales in 2021 was 24, one year older than in 2011. In London the average age was the oldest, at 25. The median age in every other English region and in Wales was 24.

    The ONS denied that its findings were linked to the fact that the census was taken during the pandemic. It said: “The rise in numbers of adults living with their parents appears to be a continuing trend rather than a result of the pandemic.”

    Most people in their early twenties were living with their parents by the time of Census 2021, the ONS said.

    Adults were more likely to live with their parents in areas where housing was expensive, showing the impact of high rents and housing costs.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/census-2021-more-than-half-of-adults-aged-24-and-under-live-with-parents-g76vtq8kw
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry a well then. :)
    Note the subtlety - they are keeping university trained ones to act as physicians for the private market. Mere 'surgeon apothecaries' will do for the hoi polloi.
    Joking aside, they could help that little problem out by insisting they choose between working for the NHS or working private. The medical profession continually moans about how overworked they are, but somehow they still find the time to work in private practice alongside their NHS contract. Perhaps they have managed to manufacture Hermione Granger's time-turner enabling them to be in two places at once. If they have, they need to know that the IP belongs to the NHS.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153
    edited May 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff

    That's gonna be one hell of a tough gig. Why would anyone want to face certain defeat in 2024 when 2028 could be a lot more attractive for Con?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    Andy_JS said:

    Cyclefree said:

    From the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association:

    The following faculties have so far confirmed they will be boycotting juryless courts.

    Aberdeen, Airdrie, Ayr, Borders, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Hamilton, Highland & Moray, Paisley, Perth and West Lothian.

    I hope every faculty in Scotland does the same thing.
    I guess the jury is out on that one.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Utterly misleading. Degree apprenticeships are based around clinical training in addition to university based scholarship, and will usually take longer to achieve the qualifications. They will not be acting as doctors straight from A levels, anymore than a medical student is during experiential clinical placements.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    For life experience, you mean, or because unis will train them better technically? Not sure the latter has to apply. Eg if you have top A levels and then combine work experience with study in some non-uni setting I can see that this might produce good doctors?
    There is something to be said for seeing how folk interact at an early stage - benefits both sides before they go too far. Mrs C did quite a bit of voluntary work with old folk when considering what university degree to go for. She went into another field, but to this day has much more sympathy and understanding with the old than many of us do.

    But there are other ways to achieve that specific aim.
    Maybe a plus for the idea is it might help more young people from poorer non-professional backgrounds into medicine? Those who are clever enough but are put off uni by the cost of it and the debt you have to take on.
    Agreed. If it is good enough for lawyers and accountants it is good enough for the medical profession. The idea that you need to be some kind of academic genius to be a doctor is ridiculous.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.

    I too thought conviction rates in rape trials were much lower than for other serious crimes of violence but the data linked above (Nigel's post) seems to contradict this.
    Conviction rates in rape trials are notably high

    The supposed scandal is the number of ALLEGATIONS that never make court. But until they reach court, they are merely that: allegations
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Had to check the date, but no,

    This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
    Not really. They will be learning the same stuff, but at different times.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    @Reuters

    Embattled US Rep George Santos arrested on fraud, money laundering charges reut.rs/3pnYQDL
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff

    That's gonna be one hell of a tough gig. Why would anyone want to face certain defeat in 2024 when 2028 could be a lot more attractive for Con?
    Hopefully Brian Rose runs again with his usual betfair backers!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    For life experience, you mean, or because unis will train them better technically? Not sure the latter has to apply. Eg if you have top A levels and then combine work experience with study in some non-uni setting I can see that this might produce good doctors?
    There is something to be said for seeing how folk interact at an early stage - benefits both sides before they go too far. Mrs C did quite a bit of voluntary work with old folk when considering what university degree to go for. She went into another field, but to this day has much more sympathy and understanding with the old than many of us do.

    But there are other ways to achieve that specific aim.
    Maybe a plus for the idea is it might help more young people from poorer non-professional backgrounds into medicine? Those who are clever enough but are put off uni by the cost of it and the debt you have to take on.
    Working class kids were hardly teeming into medicine before the introduction of fees.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.

    I too thought conviction rates in rape trials were much lower than for other serious crimes of violence but the data linked above (Nigel's post) seems to contradict this.
    Conviction rates in rape trials are notably high

    The supposed scandal is the number of ALLEGATIONS that never make court. But until they reach court, they are merely that: allegations
    It’s massively complicated by so many accusations between previously consenting adults, and in some cases adults who consented afterwards too. It relies on she said being true and he said not being, when we often how no way to know, and there exists plenty of cases where the complainant has lied, and been shown to have done.

    I have no doubt that most complainants believe what they claim, but in many of those cases the accused may have very different recollections of the events.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    A

    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    They could improve the supply of surgeons by going back to the traditional role of barber-surgeons. A recruitment drive in the hairdressing salons of England would help enormously.
    Might help the pie industry a well then. :)
    Note the subtlety - they are keeping university trained ones to act as physicians for the private market. Mere 'surgeon apothecaries' will do for the hoi polloi.
    “the hoi polloi”

    Throw him to the Head Count!
    All right, capites censi, then.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677
    On the SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE Miss @Cyclefree is entirely right

    Juryless trials for alleged crimes which could put you in prison for ten years are an abomination. This is not how we do justice. It is repulsive

    The Supreme Court should put Humza back in his box
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Rape convictions are too low. But this is not because of the existence of juries. It is because the investigations are poor and the delays before trial too long.

    Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.

    I too thought conviction rates in rape trials were much lower than for other serious crimes of violence but the data linked above (Nigel's post) seems to contradict this.
    Conviction rates in rape trials are notably high

    The supposed scandal is the number of ALLEGATIONS that never make court. But until they reach court, they are merely that: allegations
    It’s massively complicated by so many accusations between previously consenting adults, and in some cases adults who consented afterwards too. It relies on she said being true and he said not being, when we often how no way to know, and there exists plenty of cases where the complainant has lied, and been shown to have done.

    I have no doubt that most complainants believe what they claim, but in many of those cases the accused may have very different recollections of the events.
    Yes, two honest people can have honestly different recollections of the same events.

    "She consented"

    "I did not consent"

    It is all made worse when both sides were drunk, and both accounts are probably quite unreliable. And in the nature of sex cases, all this will be without witnesses or corroboration. And often with a previous history of sexual intimacy between the same two people

    In these case the CPS is often reluctant to take allegations to court knowing that the chances of conviction are very low, as it is seen as a waste of public time and money.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Had to check the date, but no,

    This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
    It is not necessary to go quite that far back. Even in the first part of the 20th century, most doctors did not have medical degrees. I'm not sure it is necessary even now. You went to medical school and at the end you passed the exams and became a doctor, but the exams might be degree exams set by the university, or they might be set by the Royal Colleges or other bodies. Many took both as a belt-and-braces approach. If you think back to your childhood GPs, they might have been Dr Smith-Jones MBBS MRCS LRCP or LMSSA. The training was the same, it was just the exams.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,127
    Scott_xP said:

    @MrHarryCole
    Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:

    Iain Dale
    Osborne
    Vaizey
    Tom Tugs
    Nick Candy
    Karen Bradey

    Hinting:

    Rob Rinder
    Dan Korski
    Shaun Bailey
    Nick Rogers
    Paul Scully

    Running:

    Samuel Kasumu
    Andrew Boff

    Ahh, Andrew Boff, the Harold Stassen of London.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691
    Scott_xP said:

    @Reuters

    Embattled US Rep George Santos arrested on fraud, money laundering charges reut.rs/3pnYQDL

    Joe Biden increasingly looks squeaky clean on a comparative grime level.

    Maybe it is a thing!

    I give it exactly zero chance, but what if Trump really is being stitched up? (For the sake of argument assume I've gone momentarily insane and I give Trump some tiny chance that he's telling the truth.)

    I think we could sell them a well-washed Boris - he'd be better than they have.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,283
    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Had to check the date, but no,

    This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
    180 years ago the status of a surgeon (largely required for hacking off limbs with saws - hence the title "sawbones") was very much more humble than a physician, where the main role of the latter was to diagnose and to advise treatment, such as leaches. At some point in the last 100 years or so, when surgery became more complex, the comparative status largely reversed where surgeons were consider the more prestigious end of the medical profession. It is because of this distinction within the profession that in the UK and Ireland surgeons are still referred to as "Mr" rather than "Dr"

    This is a peculiarity (IIRC) of the UK and Ireland medical profession. Elsewhere in the world surgeons are all called the honorific "Dr". It causes great confusion to people visiting UK hospitals from overseas.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585

    Carnyx said:

    Elitist snob that I am, I'm not the only one who would prefer his doctors to have degrees?

    NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree

    New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university


    School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.

    The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".

    It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/

    Had to check the date, but no,

    This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
    It is not necessary to go quite that far back. Even in the first part of the 20th century, most doctors did not have medical degrees. I'm not sure it is necessary even now. You went to medical school and at the end you passed the exams and became a doctor, but the exams might be degree exams set by the university, or they might be set by the Royal Colleges or other bodies. Many took both as a belt-and-braces approach. If you think back to your childhood GPs, they might have been Dr Smith-Jones MBBS MRCS LRCP or LMSSA. The training was the same, it was just the exams.
    I'm pretty supportive of anyone bypassing university.
    Learning stuff is important. But university is rarely the optimum way to do it.
This discussion has been closed.