Howdy, Stranger!

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

Even CON voters think that ministers should provide all the COVID-19 messages – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,060
edited June 2023 in General
imageEven CON voters think that ministers should provide all the COVID-19 messages – politicalbetting.com

The big UK political story concerns the effort by the COVID 19 inquiry into getting access to the WhatsApp accounts of leading politicians on what happened during the period when it was at its most rampant.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646
    edited June 2023
    Bugger, you've nicked my morning thread, I may have to deploy an AV thread, Indyref2 thread, or a cashless society thread.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646
    FPT but relevant here.

    Well.

    The Cabinet Office has warned Boris Johnson it will pull public funding for his legal advice for the Covid inquiry if he “undermines the government’s position” or releases evidence without permission.

    Government lawyers wrote to Johnson last week saying money would “cease to be available” if he broke any of their conditions.

    These include the requirement to co-operate with any “reasonable” demand and to send them his witness statements and any requested documents for pre-approval and redaction before they are submitted to the inquiry.

    The advice puts the former prime minister on a collision course with officials, with experts suggesting that he may have already breached some of its provisions.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-funding-cut-k03r96mws
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Rishi Sunak is a bit naff isn't he?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,232
    45% of Tory voters think ministers should have to provide all Covid messages ie a plurality not a majority
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
  • WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited June 2023
    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:
    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,141
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election#cite_note-1

    Third poll since the calling of the GE. All 3 polling companies showing a bigger poll lead for the PP over the PSOEthan their predecessors. Equally, no suggestion yet that there will be an absolute majority. Without some dramatic changes the early signs suggest the socilaist calling a quick GE after the local polling defeat is not working to thier advantage, with no possibility of a Centre Left Coalition.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,565

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    Allow me to explain the concept of “reasonable doubt”…or I could just say that no reasons me person could reasonably doubt what he was referring to here, nor that he would have known how it would be construed.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    Allow me to explain the concept of “reasonable doubt”…or I could just say that no reasons me person could reasonably doubt what he was referring to here, nor that he would have known how it would be construed.
    Is it reasonable doubt? You're assuming.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639
    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, even against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    As you say, it is arguably against existing law. That's it. No need to effortfully signal that in a meta-meta-strategy sense both sides are wrong. Let the magistrate sort it out.
  • WestieWestie Posts: 426

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    If you'd attended a criminal trial, you'd know they don't talk about reasonable doubt. What the judge tells the jury is that they must be sure. The phrase used is "satisfied so that you are sure". If you aren't sure, acquit.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,034
    edited June 2023

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    I think he’s referring to Hillsborough, but I think this is an over the top reaction. Had he done it against Liverpool, then maybe, though I doubt he’d have been brave enough to wear it against them.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    It’s a public order offence for a reason. The risk to public order outweighs someone’s right to wear a t-shirt. And you can’t tell me that that would not have provoked a fight under any circumstances.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Yes it is. Celebrating the deaths of a definable group of people risks violence from that group.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    So you accept limits on free speech in that case.

    The reality is that it is not beyond reasonable doubt because you haven't spoken to him. He is innocent until it goes to court and he is convicted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,565
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    It’s a public order offence for a reason. The risk to public order outweighs someone’s right to wear a t-shirt. And you can’t tell me that that would not have provoked a fight under any circumstances.
    Well, yes, given the propensity for violence among football fans.

    I just find it interesting that an insult to the victims of a sectarian massacre isn’t fitting words as well.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,153
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    Allow me to explain the concept of “reasonable doubt”…or I could just say that no reasons me person could reasonably doubt what he was referring to here, nor that he would have known how it would be construed.
    Good evening

    I really cannot believe anyone could be so crass

    If he is a United supporter he needs a life ban
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,141
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    It’s a public order offence for a reason. The risk to public order outweighs someone’s right to wear a t-shirt. And you can’t tell me that that would not have provoked a fight under any circumstances.
    Did it provoke a fight? Nothing to suggest a fight in the picture.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    It’s a public order offence for a reason. The risk to public order outweighs someone’s right to wear a t-shirt. And you can’t tell me that that would not have provoked a fight under any circumstances.
    You are arguing it is an offence because it might provoke someone else to commit unlawful behaviour. That is an argument you should imprison women for wearing provocative clothing in case they incite someone to rape them.

    The law is wrong on this. It needs repealing
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523
    Westie said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    If you'd attended a criminal trial, you'd know they don't talk about reasonable doubt. What the judge tells the jury is that they must be sure. The phrase used is "satisfied so that you are sure". If you aren't sure, acquit.
    I didn't know that. Where does the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" come into it then?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,333
    edited June 2023
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    Is it against the law if it provokes violence from the aggrieved group rather than towards it?
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    So you accept limits on free speech in that case.

    The reality is that it is not beyond reasonable doubt because you haven't spoken to him. He is innocent until it goes to court and he is convicted.
    That is only true inside the English criminal law rule space, which is not where we are. We are not a jury.

    for instance, if it were relevant in an English trial, you would have to call evidence to show that Freddie Mercury was the lead singer of Queen*. If I claim that FM was in fact the singer on Bohemian Rhapsody, are you going to dispute that?

    *Unless judicial notice had been taken of the fact by a superior court in a previous case.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    So you accept limits on free speech in that case.

    The reality is that it is not beyond reasonable doubt because you haven't spoken to him. He is innocent until it goes to court and he is convicted.
    Having free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences for whatever stupid, insulting and provocative thing that you wish to say.

    I am arguing that if a person uses their free speech to behave in such a way - and this would include similar references to the Munich disaster, say - then other people would be justified in using their freedom not to allow such a person to attend football matches, or use licensed premises.

    If you repeatedly insult me, then free speech means that you don't go to jail for that, but it doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to tell you to piss off and exercise my right never to associate with you ever again.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,676
    felix said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election#cite_note-1

    Third poll since the calling of the GE. All 3 polling companies showing a bigger poll lead for the PP over the PSOE than their predecessors. Equally, no suggestion yet that there will be an absolute majority. Without some dramatic changes the early signs suggest the socilaist calling a quick GE after the local polling defeat is not working to thier advantage, with no possibility of a Centre Left Coalition.

    Indeed though it's worth stressing PP and VOX, on the InvyMark numbers, would be close to a majority but that's all. The previous two polls put PP and VOX in to a clear majority in the next Cortes so it's early days yet. It does look a real uphill battle for Sanchez to stay in power.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,812

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    One can be pretty sure, I think. It’s intended to be a taunt.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    carnforth said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    Is it against the law if it provokes violence from the aggrieved group rather than towards it?
    Yes.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    The reasonableness concept can look silly at times, especially in an era or milieu where the highest status and privilege are given to precise quantitative data analysis. However, the idea of the beliefs and behaviour of a "reasonable person" are fundamental to the criminal law of the land and thus to policing under the rule of law.

    In this NI case, I think the doubt about the direct allusion to one particular set of killings in its unfortunate history would be much more reasonable to assert, as would (say) tweeting about Miami Vice on the anniversary of the Miami Showband killings, whereas it would be much harder to create a custom-made shirt favourable to Bloody Sunday and pass it off as reasonable behaviour outwith intention to intimidate or provoke violence.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    edited June 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime. The concept of “fighting words” was part of the common law for centuries before the Public Order Acts codified it.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,812
    carnforth said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    Is it against the law if it provokes violence from the aggrieved group rather than towards it?
    The idea of “fighting words” is quite well-established in laws that relate to public order.

    If I stood outside a synagogue wearing a t-shirt that said “Six Million. Not enough”, I could expect to be arrested PDQ.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    Although the MP did resign as a consequence of the widespread disgust at his tweet, so there were non-judicial consequences for his action in that case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,439
    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    Really? The actual evidence, posted below, shows you are taking out of your arse.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,439

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Fair play to the MU fans that dobbed him in.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    Really? The actual evidence, posted below, shows you are taking out of your arse.


    I raise you this which isnt a us poll

    quote
    "As approval of the police declines, so does Britons’ confidence in the police’s ability to deal with crime in their local area. The proportion of Britons saying they have ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of confidence in the police’s ability to tackle local crime now sits at 43%, and around half (47%) of the public now have ‘not very much confidence’ or ‘no confidence at all’ in the police"

    source https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/confidence-police-sinks-two-years
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,565
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    The concept of “fighting words” has an ancient history in law.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,141
    stodge said:

    felix said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election#cite_note-1

    Third poll since the calling of the GE. All 3 polling companies showing a bigger poll lead for the PP over the PSOE than their predecessors. Equally, no suggestion yet that there will be an absolute majority. Without some dramatic changes the early signs suggest the socilaist calling a quick GE after the local polling defeat is not working to thier advantage, with no possibility of a Centre Left Coalition.

    Indeed though it's worth stressing PP and VOX, on the InvyMark numbers, would be close to a majority but that's all. The previous two polls put PP and VOX in to a clear majority in the next Cortes so it's early days yet. It does look a real uphill battle for Sanchez to stay in power.
    Correct although seat extrapalations from these ;polls are not always reliable. Spain uses the D'Hondt system which is broadly proportional but when the smaller parties fall below the seat threshold it starts to go awry. PP already have an AM in Andalucía from last year - a surprise as it had always been won comfortably by the Socialists. I think there may be a feeling that calling a GE in the middle of the Spanish holiday system may not be going down too well for Sanchez. The problems between the other left -wing groups are also unhelpful. The economic problems are less bad here than eslewhere in Europe but so far the government is not benefitting. There is now I think just about 7 weeks to go.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,710

    I don’t really understand why the Cabinet Office is funding Johnson’s defence anyway.

    But for it to now threaten Johnson for *co-operating* with an enquiry which it actually set up, is like something from a tinpot Latin American dictatorship.

    Simon Case and Rishi Sunak.
    GET RID.

    Simon Case and Mark Sedwill before him both seemed to be a poor fit for that kind of role.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,181
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    The correct thing to do in these free speech occasions is not arrest but allow the taunt to be part of mitigating circumstances
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,812
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    And white collar crime is almost condoned in this country.

    I know two solicitors, both struck off for embezzling sums in the hundreds of thousands, who have never been prosecuted.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    Really? The actual evidence, posted below, shows you are taking out of your arse.


    I raise you this which isnt a us poll

    quote
    "As approval of the police declines, so does Britons’ confidence in the police’s ability to deal with crime in their local area. The proportion of Britons saying they have ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of confidence in the police’s ability to tackle local crime now sits at 43%, and around half (47%) of the public now have ‘not very much confidence’ or ‘no confidence at all’ in the police"

    source https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/confidence-police-sinks-two-years
    What the fuck has that got to do with a criminal offence that has been around, in various guises, for hundreds of years? How is there a direct correlation between the Public Order Act and an inability to deal with crime? Breach of the Public Order Acts is a crime.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,439
    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,710
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    We've gone from, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," to, "Neutral on crime, neutral on the causes of crime."
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    Really? The actual evidence, posted below, shows you are taking out of your arse.


    I raise you this which isnt a us poll

    quote
    "As approval of the police declines, so does Britons’ confidence in the police’s ability to deal with crime in their local area. The proportion of Britons saying they have ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of confidence in the police’s ability to tackle local crime now sits at 43%, and around half (47%) of the public now have ‘not very much confidence’ or ‘no confidence at all’ in the police"

    source https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/confidence-police-sinks-two-years
    What the fuck has that got to do with a criminal offence that has been around, in various guises, for hundreds of years? How is there a direct correlation between the Public Order Act and an inability to deal with crime? Breach of the Public Order Acts is a crime.
    It was a response to you trying to claim that people in this country have confidence in the whole system of law.....we police by consent here. We are close to the point where that consent is being withdrawn with now 47% saying no confidence. You think people support our justice system....no they think it is failing. I know as a lawyer you dont want to acknowledge it but you can do something to bring back confidence or you can keep supporting people being prosecuted for things which should not be crimes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,837
    edited June 2023
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    Shoplifting and handling shoplifter items. Ask any retailer and they will tell you how much we pay to cover the cost of this, much of it by druggies to fund their habit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,565
    edited June 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
    Oh, I don’t know

    A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thieves got a certain distance before a nasty crash.

    The police investigated thoroughly.

    Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523
    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
    You'd need to cause quite a lot of harm to be sure of having a jury trial.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
    Oh, I don’t know

    A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thrived got a certain distance before a nasty crash.

    The police investigated thoroughly.

    Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
    Not surprised my step father had his dog stolen from his garden the police didn't turn up for 5 hours and he had got it back having caught up to the tramp. They told him he was lucky they hadn't found the tramp so couldn't press assault charges for threatening him to get his dog back
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,470

    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
    You'd need to cause quite a lot of harm to be sure of having a jury trial.
    And how much Mr Sandpit actually has to do with Merseyside would be a factor.

    Compare, btw, the failed Scottish legislation much decried by PBTory/Unionists at the time, to ban singing of songs about, for instance, murdering people of the same religion and/or nationality as a lot of the opposing fans.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 874

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    We've gone from, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," to, "Neutral on crime, neutral on the causes of crime."
    Neutral at best, particularly on the causes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,710

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
    Oh, I don’t know

    A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thrived got a certain distance before a nasty crash.

    The police investigated thoroughly.

    Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
    Too many of the police seem to see themelves as neutral keepers of the peace. To enforce the law would be dangerously authoritarian.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,181
    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    And white collar crime is almost condoned in this country.

    I know two solicitors, both struck off for embezzling sums in the hundreds of thousands, who have never been prosecuted.
    This (and things like vehicle crime) is exactly the area of law and order where there is a liberal case for cracking down.

    It’s about due process. Governments can fail to follow due process in two ways: by prosecuting and convicting on flimsy evidence and cutting corners, and persecuting particular groups based on people “looking dodgy”; or by failing to investigate and prosecute actual crimes because they can’t be arsed. Both are wrong.

    Someone nicks your car? Investigate it, carry it through to a conclusion, use the resources and data available to you, and thereby deter future crime. Someone embezzles a load of money from their employer or helps out with a fraudulent transaction, but speaks nicely? Investigate them, prosecute them, bring the full force of the law down on them.

    Someone is hanging around on the street looking a bit dodgy? Leave them alone unless you have a real legal basis to stop them.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,637
    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    And white collar crime is almost condoned in this country.

    I know two solicitors, both struck off for embezzling sums in the hundreds of thousands, who have never been prosecuted.
    Another piece in the nothing seems to work in this wretched country any more jigsaw.

    And it doesn't matter if it's not true- actually, quite a lot of things work remarkably well. Neither does it matter that many of the problems don't have much to do with the government in general or Rishi Sunak in particular.

    He's going to cop the blame. After all, one of the (probably genuine) Brexit benefits is giving the British voter one unambiguous target for their ire.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,095
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.

    Shoplifting and handling shoplifter items. Ask any retailer and they will tell you how much we pay to cover the cost of this, much of it by druggies to fund their habit.
    Did you read the recent Guardian article about that? Pretty depressing reading: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/01/one-guy-uses-us-like-a-larder-the-british-shoplifting-crisis-as-seen-from-the-tills
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,181

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
    Oh, I don’t know

    A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thrived got a certain distance before a nasty crash.

    The police investigated thoroughly.

    Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
    Too many of the police seem to see themelves as neutral keepers of the peace. To enforce the law would be dangerously authoritarian.
    Until they come across crusties or darkies, or women protesting about a murder of a lone female. Then they love a bit of enforcement.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    and offer you a crime number but no action
    Oh, I don’t know

    A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thrived got a certain distance before a nasty crash.

    The police investigated thoroughly.

    Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
    Too many of the police seem to see themelves as neutral keepers of the peace. To enforce the law would be dangerously authoritarian.
    Until they come across crusties or darkies, or women protesting about a murder of a lone female. Then they love a bit of enforcement.
    All these posts prove my point people are losing faith in our criminal justice system though the lawyers here don't want to hear it
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,181

    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    And white collar crime is almost condoned in this country.

    I know two solicitors, both struck off for embezzling sums in the hundreds of thousands, who have never been prosecuted.
    Another piece in the nothing seems to work in this wretched country any more jigsaw.

    And it doesn't matter if it's not true- actually, quite a lot of things work remarkably well. Neither does it matter that many of the problems don't have much to do with the government in general or Rishi Sunak in particular.

    He's going to cop the blame. After all, one of the (probably genuine) Brexit benefits is giving the British voter one unambiguous target for their ire.
    It seems law and order and the behaviour of the police is a policy area where there’s strong consensus across the board.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,560
    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
    That's a bullshit defence. It may be a provocation, but there is no reason to indulge in physical violence against him.

    If you're that sort of person (and I really hope you are just bragging), then what other offensive things might trigger you?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,364
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    Shoplifting and handling shoplifter items. Ask any retailer and they will tell you how much we pay to cover the cost of this, much of it by druggies to fund their habit.
    Easy solution. Legalise all drugs, just like tobacco and alcohol. Available from pharmacies, possibly on prescription. Collect tax, reduce shoplifting. What's the problem?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
    That's a bullshit defence. It may be a provocation, but there is no reason to indulge in physical violence against him.

    If you're that sort of person (and I really hope you are just bragging), then what other offensive things might trigger you?
    In these circumstances it’s not so much a defence as mitigation you’re looking for
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,764

    Sandpit said:

    DougSeal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Westie said:

    FPT
    Wearing a t-shirt in public saying "97 - Not Enough" is despicable, and there is a case for thinking it should be against the law, and a case for thinking it's against existing law, but it is not a provocation of violence. Little good is gained from the kind of warped thought that leads to such conclusions.

    Meanwhile:

    carnforth said:

    What about "The only good X is a dead X". Does that meet the threshold?

    It's true about landlords, though. What's the problem?
    Oh, it’s a provocation of violence. I’d have smacked the shit out out him.
    Exactly. Both you and he would have been arrested.
    Indeed - and my defence, in front of the jury, would have been that I was standing up for the 97 people who went to an FA cup football match and never came home.
    That's a bullshit defence. It may be a provocation, but there is no reason to indulge in physical violence against him.

    If you're that sort of person (and I really hope you are just bragging), then what other offensive things might trigger you?
    Precisely sandpit choosing to break actual proper law is the problem when he could just choose to shake his head and mutter dickhead. It is no different to prosecuting woman for wearing provocative clothing because they might incite rape
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,864
    tlg86 said:
    Deeply unpleasant

    But since when did we arrest people for that?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,812
    TimS said:

    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
    Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.

    I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
    No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
    So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
    People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.

    Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
    Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
    A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
    And white collar crime is almost condoned in this country.

    I know two solicitors, both struck off for embezzling sums in the hundreds of thousands, who have never been prosecuted.
    This (and things like vehicle crime) is exactly the area of law and order where there is a liberal case for cracking down.

    It’s about due process. Governments can fail to follow due process in two ways: by prosecuting and convicting on flimsy evidence and cutting corners, and persecuting particular groups based on people “looking dodgy”; or by failing to investigate and prosecute actual crimes because they can’t be arsed. Both are wrong.

    Someone nicks your car? Investigate it, carry it through to a conclusion, use the resources and data available to you, and thereby deter future crime. Someone embezzles a load of money from their employer or helps out with a fraudulent transaction, but speaks nicely? Investigate them, prosecute them, bring the full force of the law down on them.

    Someone is hanging around on the street looking a bit dodgy? Leave them alone unless you have a real legal basis to stop them.
    The US justice system is mostly vindictive and unpleasant, but we could learn from their treatment of white collar criminals.

    In this country, if you return the money, or obtain an IVA, the police will say “it’s a civil matter.”

    Worse, I knew a financial adviser who stole £14m, and he served 42 months in open prisons.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,864

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.

    97 - not enough

    Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,200



    We've gone from, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," to, "Neutral on crime, neutral on the causes of crime."

    I felt an officer's hand on my back as I turned to look at what was going on, I assume she was concerned I was a protester and might also try to run onto the track.

    She quickly removed her hand and apologised. I heard one officer tell his colleagues to get the names of anyone filming.

    I explained I was a journalist but I was then asked repeatedly for my date of birth, I again explained that I was a reporter and one officer apologised to me.

    Then another tried to read my notebook - clearly suspicious I had some kind of relevant information (I did not).



    https://news.sky.com/story/epsom-derby-nineteen-people-arrested-over-plans-to-disrupt-race-festival-as-protester-runs-on-reace-course-12895476
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.

    97 - not enough

    Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
    The courts don’t have to rule it out. They just have to be satisfied that there was no reasonable doubt as to what was being referred to.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646
    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,200

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
    [..]
    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Eat Out To Help Covid Out!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    tlg86 said:
    Deeply unpleasant

    But since when did we arrest people for that?
    For centuries. Provocation of violence was codified first at section 6 of the Public Order Act 1936 but had a history at common law far predating that. It would likely have been a breach of the peace as long ago as Alfred.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,864
    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.

    97 - not enough

    Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
    The courts don’t have to rule it out. They just have to be satisfied that there was no reasonable doubt as to what was being referred to.
    If you can’t rule it out then it’s a reasonable explanation - hence there is doubt that the alternative is correct

    If he could (and I have my doubts) show any track record of political activity…

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,523

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.

    97 - not enough

    Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
    Yes, it can.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,636

    Rishi Sunak is a bit naff isn't he?

    He’s there because he doesn’t have the flaws of his three predecessors
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    DougSeal said:

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
    The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
    Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.

    97 - not enough

    Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
    The courts don’t have to rule it out. They just have to be satisfied that there was no reasonable doubt as to what was being referred to.
    If you can’t rule it out then it’s a reasonable explanation - hence there is doubt that the alternative is correct

    If he could (and I have my doubts) show any track record of political activity…

    There may be doubt but it’s not a reasonable doubt.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,837
    edited June 2023

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    In Leicester we were still under some lockdown restrictions in August 2020 because of continuing high prevalence. These were the restrictions at the end of August:

    "You must still not visit family or friends inside their homes or in their gardens unless you’ve formed a social bubble with them.

    You cannot stay overnight in another person’s home, unless you’ve formed a bubble with them

    You cannot meet up with anyone from outside your household inside a café, bar or restaurant."

    Yet EOTHO still went ahead here. I remember driving home via the London Road restaurant strip and seeing queues outside each.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,131

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    This is what I guessed a few days back. Rishi not consulting the scientists might play better for him than if he did ask and was told it would lead to massive spread.

    I suspect Whitty or someone at Dept of Health would have objected tbh and Rishi probably ignored them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,646
    This too.

    Another critical decision set to be investigated by Hallett was made in September 2020, when the government was urged by Sage to impose a mini-lockdown to dampen rising case numbers, with both Johnson and Sunak opposing the move. “I said then that the question was either do it now and get on top of the epidemic and keep it under control, or be forced into doing it in a few weeks’ time, by which time the epidemic will be much worse,” Edmunds said. “There will be many more hospitalisations and deaths, and you will have to take more stringent action. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened.”
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,637

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    But if that is what Sunak is trying to hide, he doesn't have a hope in hell, does he?

    Here's some of the publicity from August 2020. It doesn't exactly need Sherlock Holmes to work out whose policy it was.



    (It was a decent plan for when COVID was Definitely Tamed. Which, despite wishful thinking and Oxford epidemiology, wasn't August 2020.)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,153

    This too.

    Another critical decision set to be investigated by Hallett was made in September 2020, when the government was urged by Sage to impose a mini-lockdown to dampen rising case numbers, with both Johnson and Sunak opposing the move. “I said then that the question was either do it now and get on top of the epidemic and keep it under control, or be forced into doing it in a few weeks’ time, by which time the epidemic will be much worse,” Edmunds said. “There will be many more hospitalisations and deaths, and you will have to take more stringent action. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened.”

    and this from May 2022

    SAGE models were too 'scary' and held too much weight... says lockdown architect behind them!

    No10 Covid expert admits death forecasts were 'eye watering' and should have considered economy

    Professor John Edmunds said Covid models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making

    He accepted models failed to account for the economic and health harms that Covid lockdowns caused

    SAGE member admitted these harms 'in principle' could have been factored in 'but in practice they were not
  • This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I don't think this can possibly be an explanation for the WhatsApp message fiasco, as there can be no argument over whether messages about this policy would be relevant. Failure to disclose - regardless of the decision in the judicial review - would be a serious offence and career-ending cover-up.

    I see the grubby hand of Simon Case in all this. He's the common link, and has rather a lot to hide about how he managed the conduct of Government at that time. I suspect he prevailed on Sunak to back the JR on a pretty bogus "chilling effect on free discussion basis". And Sunak, being actually really bad ad judging the optics of these kinds of things, said "okay, Simon".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,678

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    *legendary modesty KLAXONNNNN*

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4419058#Comment_4419058
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,812

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,539

    tlg86 said:
    You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
    99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
    Interesting that it’s seen as an arrestable offence.

    On the anniversary of the Kingsmill Massacre (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre) a Sein Fein politician tweeted a picture of a loaf of Kingsmill bread balanced on his head*.

    The NI police said that it was harmless banter plus there was no evidence that it referred to anything.

    *yes, they are fucking weird in NI
    I believe 1 Para flags are quite frequently flown in parts of Derry/Londonderry (delete to taste). I doubt that they’re commemorating Arnhem.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,710

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I don't think this can possibly be an explanation for the WhatsApp message fiasco, as there can be no argument over whether messages about this policy would be relevant. Failure to disclose - regardless of the decision in the judicial review - would be a serious offence and career-ending cover-up.

    I see the grubby hand of Simon Case in all this. He's the common link, and has rather a lot to hide about how he managed the conduct of Government at that time. I suspect he prevailed on Sunak to back the JR on a pretty bogus "chilling effect on free discussion basis". And Sunak, being actually really bad ad judging the optics of these kinds of things, said "okay, Simon".
    Simon Case's vindictive comments about "locking up" travellers in "premier inn shoe boxes" should have been career ending.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639
    Sean_F said:

    This explains it.

    Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.

    The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.

    The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....

    ....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.

    Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.

    “If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”

    Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.

    In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/03/sunak-under-fire-as-stupid-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-to-be-focus-of-covid-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.

    How is this even a story? Unless people think we needed permanent social distancing, people were going to go out and mingle with each other sooner or later.
This discussion has been closed.