Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Leaving the ECHR would cost the Tories dear – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,916
edited August 2023 in General
imageLeaving the ECHR would cost the Tories dear – politicalbetting.com

Some senior Tories are pressing Sunak to include a commitment to leave the European Commission on Human Rights in the party’s next election manifesto. This follows the decisions of the court on the government’s Rwanda plans.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    First.
  • Options
    Sunak's a bit shit.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,006

    First.

    I demand a judge led inquiry.

    (By the way, I see we've had calls for one of those over Letby.)
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 745

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    The words 'a bit' are becoming less and less credible.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    First.

    I demand a judge led inquiry.

    (By the way, I see we've had calls for one of those over Letby.)
    I'm getting targeted ads over the past few weeks telling me to apply to become a magistrate.

    So, after a fashion, I could investigate myself.
  • Options

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    That's unfair.

    Shit provides a useful service in getting rid of waste and toxins.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,006

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    That's unfair.

    Shit provides a useful service in getting rid of waste and toxins.
    Well, so did he in getting rid of Johnson and Truss.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    That's unfair.

    Shit provides a useful service in getting rid of waste and toxins.
    Well, so did he in getting rid of Johnson and Truss.
    So now its time to flush him away?
  • Options

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    A bit?
  • Options
    Based on Brexit, the Tories would have us leave the ECHR and sign up for something awful and not as good as the ECHR.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    They may well be tempted to include it in the manifesto on the basis they’ll lose and never have to implement it.

    A bit like Cameron included a Brexit referendum in his 2015 manifesto.

    They can then shout at Starmer for the next 5 years every time there’s a migration or criminal justice issue, like they used to shout about the EU but now can’t.
  • Options

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    A bit?
    He's no Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,006

    ydoethur said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    That's unfair.

    Shit provides a useful service in getting rid of waste and toxins.
    Well, so did he in getting rid of Johnson and Truss.
    So now its time to flush him away?
    No argument from me, although I'd like to see Braverman and Gibb go first.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,006
    edited August 2023

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    A bit?
    He's no Jeremy Corbyn.
    He's not the Jezziah, he's a very stupid boy?

    With apologies to Terry Jones and Arthur Lowe.
  • Options

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Careful, or they will be putting you down as a "maybe".

    (On topic, part of Sunak's problem is that he can't do this without blowing up the Windsor Protocol, which is currently about the only thing he will be able to point to in decades time and say "look, I did that as Prime Minister". Another part is that some of his current supporters really really want to reform ECHR into nothingness. And then there are those who enjoyed the 2016 campaign and think they can get a similar rush from ECHRxit.)
  • Options
    I don't think that poll is all that relevant to the policy.

    Sunak is about shoring up the stay-at-homes, RefUK etc with these sort of policies. His strategy with the more genteel Tories will be that he and Hunt are numerate.

    Hard to ride both horses, of course, but there isn't really a single message for both important sets of voters.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
  • Options

    ydoethur said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    That's unfair.

    Shit provides a useful service in getting rid of waste and toxins.
    Well, so did he in getting rid of Johnson and Truss.
    So now its time to flush him away?
    Not for another year and a bit.

    There's a metaphor for politcs right now; the toilet is blocked, the plumber is on their way (but won't actually be here for ages), meanwhile it's a warm day and the smell is getting everywhere.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    He's better than Truss.

    Low bar admittedly.
  • Options
    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,006

    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    He's better than Truss.

    Low bar admittedly.
    He followed Johnson and Truss.

    He is undoubtedly the turd.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    edited August 2023
    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv. It’s going to be fun night!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,717
    The whole thing is a confected way to kick the can beyond the next election, whereupon if the Tories have miraculously remained in power, this will be dropped on the grounds of 'practicality' or some nonsense, and if they lose, they lose.

    There is no need to leave the ECHR to get Rwanda through - in the recent past, the Court ruled that we needed to let prisoners vote, and we didn't. Afaicr we passed a law making an exception. We're still in the ECHR and nobody has chucked us out for doing what we did. We can surely do the same on Rwanda very easily.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,228
    "Opinion
    Geopolitics
    Resentment makes the world go round
    From Donald Trump to the Brics, a feeling of exclusion from the in-crowd drives political actors
    JANAN GANESH"

    https://www.ft.com/content/ffe9b555-fd6f-483c-90d2-6b2926351566
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,238

    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    He's better than Truss.

    Low bar admittedly.
    At 5ft 6in he could fit under a low bar quite comfortably.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,717

    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

    Sadiq Khan would have a fit.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635

    ... if the Tories have miraculously remained in power ...

    I suppose it could be viewed as a miracle in the sense of something that defies all natural laws and common sense.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,717
    ...
    Chris said:

    ... if the Tories have miraculously remained in power ...

    I suppose it could be viewed as a miracle in the sense of something that defies all natural laws and common sense.
    Yes. I wasn't suggesting it would be an especially 'good' miracle.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714

    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

    Sadiq Khan would have a fit.
    Ironically, it would be exempt from all his nonsense as a classic.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,016
    fpt

    darkage said:



    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    Saw this

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/21/the-natural-affinity-between-evil-and-bureaucracy/


    Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.

    I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.

    [1] https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk
    The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
    Could it ?

    Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.

    It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
    I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.

    I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
    The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.

    Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?

    I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
    A whole life sentence was inevitable.
    The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence.
    I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
    Admitting guilt is useful but not necessary and certainly shouldn't be made an aim of the system, which would inevitably put improper pressure on the police to secure 'confessions' and the like, or for innocent people to be forced into game theory scenarios.

    It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
    I'm not suggesting that the aim should be to avoid trials. But thinking about this from a victims point of view, in many cases you are only really going to get closure when the offender confesses. I think it is better that you give people who have done these terrible things some hope even if it is false hope - and that starts with taking responsibility for what they have done. In this case, the sentencing policy creates the opposite incentive.

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    ..
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,008
    edited August 2023
    Trump Super PAC has created a “VP Presidential Debate” website ahead of Wednesday’s debate — complete w/ a bobble-head looking image of each candidate and an option to “vote” for who Trump should pick as his VP (plus some trolling “fast facts”)

    https://twitter.com/ShelbyTalcott/status/1694011984230883731



    Originally thought it was schmutz on my screen but there is a fly on Mike Pence's head here

    https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1694020700800004238/photo/1
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405

    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
    Compartment shared with a stranger or someone you know?
  • Options

    The whole thing is a confected way to kick the can beyond the next election, whereupon if the Tories have miraculously remained in power, this will be dropped on the grounds of 'practicality' or some nonsense, and if they lose, they lose.

    There is no need to leave the ECHR to get Rwanda through - in the recent past, the Court ruled that we needed to let prisoners vote, and we didn't. Afaicr we passed a law making an exception. We're still in the ECHR and nobody has chucked us out for doing what we did. We can surely do the same on Rwanda very easily.

    Yes, the problem with "send them to Rwanda" isn't the EHCR
    We can't catch everyone on the boats - lack of police / border force
    We don't have anywhere to securely house them whilst we process their claims - no Tory wants asylum seekers in their constituency in houses / a hotel / a disused army base / a barge
    We don't have anyone to process their claims, or capacity in the courts to formally reject any claims which get processed and are a no
    We can't find a way under UK law to bypass the courts and just send people to Rwanda
    We can't send people to Rwanda because Rwanda cannot accept them

    No wonder they want to blame the ECHR as the reason why their crayon scribbles policy is failing. But remember, compared to this robust, well considered and ruthlessly executed triumph of a policy, Labour has no plan.

    So if you vote Labour we could have all kinds of fiascos, like boats coming in record numbers, or children being abducted from their accommodation, or an absurdly expensive and not remotely big enough barge full of the pox, or a claim backlog growing larger and larger and larger, and actual civil disorder outside asylum places. So people Must vote Conservative to avoid all that happening.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203

    The whole thing is a confected way to kick the can beyond the next election, whereupon if the Tories have miraculously remained in power, this will be dropped on the grounds of 'practicality' or some nonsense, and if they lose, they lose.

    There is no need to leave the ECHR to get Rwanda through - in the recent past, the Court ruled that we needed to let prisoners vote, and we didn't. Afaicr we passed a law making an exception. We're still in the ECHR and nobody has chucked us out for doing what we did. We can surely do the same on Rwanda very easily.

    Funny. I’ve just finished a section in my dissertation where 16thC Protestants started ascribing the acts of saints previously called “miracles” as being demonic intervention. I think your reference to “miracle” should read “through the agency of Satan”
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,520
    darkage said:

    fpt

    darkage said:



    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    Saw this

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/21/the-natural-affinity-between-evil-and-bureaucracy/


    Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.

    I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.

    [1] https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk
    The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
    Could it ?

    Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.

    It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
    I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.

    I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
    The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.

    Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?

    I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
    A whole life sentence was inevitable.
    The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence.
    I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
    Admitting guilt is useful but not necessary and certainly shouldn't be made an aim of the system, which would inevitably put improper pressure on the police to secure 'confessions' and the like, or for innocent people to be forced into game theory scenarios.

    It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
    I'm not suggesting that the aim should be to avoid trials. But thinking about this from a victims point of view, in many cases you are only really going to get closure when the offender confesses. I think it is better that you give people who have done these terrible things some hope even if it is false hope - and that starts with taking responsibility for what they have done. In this case, the sentencing policy creates the opposite incentive.

    The nature of the criminals in these sort of cases is such that they probably won't be influenced by those considerations and may well revel in not revealing details or expressing remorse (and who could say if it was genuine anyway), against which would have to be placed the very real danger of releasing the likes of Letby (or Brady in his time, or other irreconcilably evil characters) back into society.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
    Compartment shared with a stranger or someone you know?
    Thankfully my wife. I think I’d have bought two tickets rather than share with a stranger.

    This is first first class by the way, the most expensive bed on the train. There’s also shared cabins and regular seated carriages, for those who really enjoy flying long-haul economy and want to replicate the experience!

    Off for a walk shortly, let’s see how much vodka costs from the buffet car. (Only joking, it cost $6 a litre from the supermarket earlier!)
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,016
    I think the tories have got to the point of the political cycle where they have been in power for so long that they are no longer able to attribute blame for problems to anyone (or anything) other than themselves.
  • Options

    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

    It looks like a Bentley Meteor without the bodywork
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Why are they so in hoc to these headbangers?!

    And what happens after leaving the ECHR? The UN? What happens when there’s nothing else to leave?

    These morons want a gammon flavoured North Korea.
  • Options
    Weather-or-not-you-want-it Report

    Pleased to say that air quality has vastly improved in Seattle and across western Washington (ditto western Oregon, also Vancouver Island and Lower Mainland of British Columbia).

    This thanks to push of marine air off North Pacific aided by remnants of former Hurricane Hilary.

    Last night AQI for Sea was rated "unhealthy for sensitive groups", while this AM it is on the good side of "good" (under 25).

    East of the Cascades, slow improvement, with Tri-Cities air quality now rated "moderate" and Spokane heading that direction. However, number of wild fires still raging and only partly contained in Spokane County remain a big problem, along with fires near Wenatchee and along the US-Canadian border north of Grand Coulee, which are (so far) keeping air mainly "unhealthy" in and around Wenatchee, Chelan and Yakima.

    As long as the entire Pacific Northwest remains dry and hotter than average, the danger of wild fires remains high. With these ranging from urban and suburban brush fires,. to forest fires over sizable acreages.

    So we ain't out of the woods yet!
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,765
    darkage said:

    I think the tories have got to the point of the political cycle where they have been in power for so long that they are no longer able to attribute blame for problems to anyone (or anything) other than themselves.

    They could blame Satan?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,567
    edited August 2023
    FPT

    Just for a bit of fun, looked up the recently released "religion brought up in" stats for Census 2021 on the NISRA website. @HYUFD may be interested (horrified?) that his beloved County Antrim has lost its overall Protestant majority (rather a plurality now), only County Down currently has an outright Protestant majority.

    % Cath % Prot % oth % none
    Antrim 40.05 47.03 2.07 10.84
    Armagh 58.18 33.96 1.16 6.70
    Derry 61.30 32.51 0.94 5.25
    Down 32.27 53.54 1.53 12.66
    Fermanagh 58.82 35.48 1.07 4.63
    Tyrone 66.49 28.88 0.66 3.97
    https://build.nisra.gov.uk/en/custom/pivotdata?d=PEOPLE&r=data&v=COUNTY_NI&v=RELIGION_BELONG_TO_OR_BROUGHT_UP_IN_DVO&p=1
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
    Compartment shared with a stranger or someone you know?
    Thankfully my wife. I think I’d have bought two tickets rather than share with a stranger.

    This is first first class by the way, the most expensive bed on the train. There’s also shared cabins and regular seated carriages, for those who really enjoy flying long-haul economy and want to replicate the experience!

    Off for a walk shortly, let’s see how much vodka costs from the buffet car. (Only joking, it cost $6 a litre from the supermarket earlier!)
    You realise you are now single-handedly bearing the exotic travelogue responsibility on this site now our regular travel supplement reporter has departed. I expect commentary on the "talent", the number of men with broken limbs, photos of well perched drinks, ponderings on the meaning of life etc.

    Long distance train journeys I find either really fun - some of the best, most meditative, most colourful travel out there - or really uncomfortable and boring. A lot seems to be down to how much space there is to walk around and how good the onboard catering is, if any. Plus the views, but I would say they are secondary as you generally get better ones from the road.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,015
    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!"
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    The joke about why dogs lick their dangly bits springs to mind, unfortunately.
  • Options
    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,203

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    They can't get involved unless someone brings a case before them. It's a court, not a police force.
  • Options
    Labour leads by 25% in the Red Wall.

    Red Wall VI (6 August):

    Labour 53% (+4)
    Conservative 28% (–)
    Reform UK 7% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 6% (-2)
    Green 4% (–)
    Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 6 August


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1694016579598745708
  • Options

    FPT

    Just for a bit of fun, looked up the recently released "religion brought up in" stats for Census 2021 on the NISRA website. @HYUFD may be interested (horrified?) that his beloved County Antrim has lost its overall Protestant majority (rather a plurality now), only County Down currently has an outright Protestant majority.


    % Cath % Prot % oth % none
    Antrim 40.05 47.03 2.07 10.84
    Armagh 58.18 33.96 1.16 6.70
    Derry 61.30 32.51 0.94 5.25
    Down 32.27 53.54 1.53 12.66
    Fermanagh 58.82 35.48 1.07 4.63
    Tyrone 66.49 28.88 0.66 3.97
    https://build.nisra.gov.uk/en/custom/pivotdata?d=PEOPLE&r=data&v=COUNTY_NI&v=RELIGION_BELONG_TO_OR_BROUGHT_UP_IN_DVO&p=1
    SOUTH Antrim UDI? The Glens up North having never been what you'd call natural turf for cultivating Oranges!
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,016

    darkage said:

    fpt

    darkage said:



    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    Saw this

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/21/the-natural-affinity-between-evil-and-bureaucracy/


    Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.

    I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.

    [1] https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk
    The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
    Could it ?

    Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.

    It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
    I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.

    I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
    The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.

    Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?

    I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
    A whole life sentence was inevitable.
    The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence.
    I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
    Admitting guilt is useful but not necessary and certainly shouldn't be made an aim of the system, which would inevitably put improper pressure on the police to secure 'confessions' and the like, or for innocent people to be forced into game theory scenarios.

    It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
    I'm not suggesting that the aim should be to avoid trials. But thinking about this from a victims point of view, in many cases you are only really going to get closure when the offender confesses. I think it is better that you give people who have done these terrible things some hope even if it is false hope - and that starts with taking responsibility for what they have done. In this case, the sentencing policy creates the opposite incentive.

    The nature of the criminals in these sort of cases is such that they probably won't be influenced by those considerations and may well revel in not revealing details or expressing remorse (and who could say if it was genuine anyway), against which would have to be placed the very real danger of releasing the likes of Letby (or Brady in his time, or other irreconcilably evil characters) back into society.
    I just don't think this is correct. I am not saying that they should be released, just that sentencing policy should allow for the possibility that they could be - this is a difference.

    I don't think you can make generalisations about the people involved. Some maintain their innocence, like Letby, and it would be unreasonable not to account for the possibility that over time they will be vindicated, like many before them.

    A slightly different scenario but I thought the whole life sentence given to Wayne Couzens was unfortunate after he confessed his guilt and co-operated because of the precedent it sets. Anyone in his position accused of similar crimes will know what is coming and has no interest at all in co-operating with the police or prosecutors.

    Very long minimum sentences and whole life orders seem to me like politics and not justice.
  • Options
    I wonder if the usual suspects will get excited by this six point increase.

    Starmer leads Sunak by 9%.

    At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (20 August)

    Starmer 42% (+6)
    Sunak 33% (+1)

    Changes +/- 6 August


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1694019148823638139
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,458
    Some figures have made an effort, but by and large the 'leave the ECHR' arguments seem really vague on why it would help, or be worth it. I don't hold a candle for the thing, but the leave side have been oddly lacklustre, as if just searching for an easy issue that will fire people up, but the heart not really being in it.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    I think it’s fair to say that internet access on a Ukranian train is intermittent at best. Not sure I’ll be watching too much of the athletics tonight!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,458
    Hmm, I don't think they'll make it somehow, BBC

  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    Because, quite clearly, it’s only because the highly paid geniuses in charge that the FTSE hasn’t gone from 8,000 to 7,100. Just think how many billions in value that extra 100 is worth. Or something.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588

    darkage said:

    fpt

    darkage said:



    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    Saw this

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/21/the-natural-affinity-between-evil-and-bureaucracy/


    Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.

    I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.

    [1] https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk
    The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
    Could it ?

    Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.

    It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
    I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.

    I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
    The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.

    Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?

    I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
    A whole life sentence was inevitable.
    The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence.
    I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
    Admitting guilt is useful but not necessary and certainly shouldn't be made an aim of the system, which would inevitably put improper pressure on the police to secure 'confessions' and the like, or for innocent people to be forced into game theory scenarios.

    It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
    I'm not suggesting that the aim should be to avoid trials. But thinking about this from a victims point of view, in many cases you are only really going to get closure when the offender confesses. I think it is better that you give people who have done these terrible things some hope even if it is false hope - and that starts with taking responsibility for what they have done. In this case, the sentencing policy creates the opposite incentive.

    The nature of the criminals in these sort of cases is such that they probably won't be influenced by those considerations and may well revel in not revealing details or expressing remorse (and who could say if it was genuine anyway), against which would have to be placed the very real danger of releasing the likes of Letby (or Brady in his time, or other irreconcilably evil characters) back into society.
    Roughly one in a million of the population has behaved in such a way that we don't intend ever to let them out. That's how it should be. Very, very rare but a clear signal about our values.

  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,451
    edited August 2023

    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

    It looks like a Bentley Meteor without the bodywork
    It's a chassis built by Fiat in 1905 to try to break the land-speed record

    It originally had twin engines, which was then banned for the land-speed record and work on it stopped

    It was found by a British enthusiast and has been restored with a 1917 Isotta-Franschini 16.5L V6-V airship engine

    Apparently it does 127mph

    https://www.autoevolution.com/news/1905-fiat-isotta-fraschini-has-a-wwi-airship-engine-and-you-can-tell-104132.html
  • Options

    I wonder if the usual suspects will get excited by this six point increase.

    Starmer leads Sunak by 9%.

    At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (20 August)

    Starmer 42% (+6)
    Sunak 33% (+1)

    Changes +/- 6 August


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1694019148823638139

    I get turned on more by VI increases, personally.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
    Compartment shared with a stranger or someone you know?
    Thankfully my wife. I think I’d have bought two tickets rather than share with a stranger.

    This is first first class by the way, the most expensive bed on the train. There’s also shared cabins and regular seated carriages, for those who really enjoy flying long-haul economy and want to replicate the experience!

    Off for a walk shortly, let’s see how much vodka costs from the buffet car. (Only joking, it cost $6 a litre from the supermarket earlier!)
    You realise you are now single-handedly bearing the exotic travelogue responsibility on this site now our regular travel supplement reporter has departed. I expect commentary on the "talent", the number of men with broken limbs, photos of well perched drinks, ponderings on the meaning of life etc.

    Long distance train journeys I find either really fun - some of the best, most meditative, most colourful travel out there - or really uncomfortable and boring. A lot seems to be down to how much space there is to walk around and how good the onboard catering is, if any. Plus the views, but I would say they are secondary as you generally get better ones from the road.
    Do you think you get better views from the road? Maybe it's because if I'm on the road I'm usually driving and therefore unable to appreciate the view, but I think views from the train tend to be better. You get much closer to city centres on a train than on a long distance road, and see a lot more human stuff (back gardens etc). In this country at least there tends to be more screening round a big road, obscuring the view. And on a train I think you are more likely to be elevated above the surrounding terrain. Windows tend to be bigger on trains too, and you are sat higher in the vehicle. Finally, on a train you get to see other train stuff! I was passed by a beautiful steam loco on the commute into Victoria this morning, for instance. Other road vehicles are much less interesting.
  • Options

    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128

    Those Starmer flip flops really winning over voters.

    BigJohn/Big G please explain.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,408

    FPT

    Anyone recognise this magnificent machine that I’ve just seen on Marlborough High Street?

    It looks like a Bentley Meteor without the bodywork
    WWI Italian airship engine on wheels, IIRC.
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
  • Options

    I wonder if the usual suspects will get excited by this six point increase.

    Starmer leads Sunak by 9%.

    At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (20 August)

    Starmer 42% (+6)
    Sunak 33% (+1)

    Changes +/- 6 August


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1694019148823638139

    Mid term polling, holiday season, probably meaningless.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    edited August 2023

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Surely one of the key strands of Brexit was that if we elect a Government that installs an exciting new Home Secretary, who might one day be PM, and who thinks outside the box, she should be allowed to enact that blue skies thinking without fear of prejudice from a foreign body. If she wants to (and Parliament
    agrees) send Afghans to Rwanda or hang serial killers like Letby or dissenters like Starmer she should be perfectly entitled thus to do. She can't do any of those things if the ECHR decides to deny her the privilege.

    Not my view, but then I didn't vote Leave.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,458
    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    People claim CEOs are no smarter than the average person, yet they pull that off every time.

    Reminds a bit of how tax cuts for rich people are, remarkably, always going to be the correct option, even when tax cuts for others are a 'Good idea, but not the right thing right now'.
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Surely one of the key strands of Brexit was that if we elect a Government that installs an exciting new Home Secretary, who might one day be PM, and who thinks outside the box, she should be allowed to enact that blue skies thinking without fear of prejudice from a foreign body. If she wants to send Afghans to Rwanda or hang serial killers like Letby or dissenters like Starmer she should be perfectly entitled thus to do. She can't do any of those things if the ECHR decides to deny her the privilege.

    Not my view, but then I didn't vote Leave.
    Nope. We abide by a set of laws. The EHCR does not make laws, it simply interprets them in just the same way as any other court. As has already been pointed out ECHR rulings are usually about how Government's are acting outside of the laws they themselves have enacted or signed up to. The problem is that people like Patel or Braverman are so dumb they can't even make decisions which abide by their own laws which they swore to uphold.
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    They can't get involved unless someone brings a case before them. It's a court, not a police force.
    Yep Fair enough. But I would have thought someone would be bringing a case to them at some point very soon.
  • Options
    OldBasingOldBasing Posts: 173

    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128

    I think the August / bank holiday polling volatility works both ways..... probably best to stick with that YouGov Lab 19% lead and call it quits.
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
  • Options

    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128

    Those Starmer flip flops really winning over voters.

    BigJohn/Big G please explain.
    The conservatives are heading into opposition without doubt, but it doesn't do Starmer any credit by the number of times he has flip flopped

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,458

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    It's also portrayed as both useless and insidiously powerful (in terms of people using it or the threat of it to derail things), and whilst there are reasons for both arguments it can come across as a muddled, confusing message.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405

    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128

    Deltapoll's consistent refusal to tweet the scores for Green, SNP and Ref meaning you have to go and dig into the detailed release is infuriating. Possibly deliberate, to get more click throughs. Other 17% sounds a lot. Lib Dem 9% looks too low.
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.

    I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    DougSeal said:

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    They can't get involved unless someone brings a case before them. It's a court, not a police force.
    Yep Fair enough. But I would have thought someone would be bringing a case to them at some point very soon.
    Even if they did and the court found against them I suspect the italian government would just shrug and ignore them. Same as most governments do. As an institution it has about much power as the un. As far as I can see its a jobs for the boys scheme which pays the right people large wages while doing the squareroot of fuck all.

    I don't particulary advocate leaving it, nor do I care if we do. It is a pointless thing signifying nothing
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    edited August 2023
    Mind you 26% is not much different to the current Tory voteshare.

    Yougov earlier this year had 44% of Conservative voters wanting to leave the ECHR, 35% to remain in it. Leavers also wanted to leave the ECHR 45% to 33% even if 55% of voters overall wanted to stay in the ECHR.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/07/ce218/1

    If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy due to incompatibility with the ECHR I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,156

    Trump Super PAC has created a “VP Presidential Debate” website ahead of Wednesday’s debate — complete w/ a bobble-head looking image of each candidate and an option to “vote” for who Trump should pick as his VP (plus some trolling “fast facts”)

    https://twitter.com/ShelbyTalcott/status/1694011984230883731



    Originally thought it was schmutz on my screen but there is a fly on Mike Pence's head here

    https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1694020700800004238/photo/1

    Ramaswamy the runaway winner on 52%. De Santis on 8%, the same as Pence and Christie.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    People claim CEOs are no smarter than the average person, yet they pull that off every time.

    Reminds a bit of how tax cuts for rich people are, remarkably, always going to be the correct option, even when tax cuts for others are a 'Good idea, but not the right thing right now'.
    Not for the average voter, even now the 45% top tax rate is higher than the 40% it was under Blair
  • Options

    Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
    Con 25% (-4)
    Lab 50% (+4)
    Lib Dem 9% (-3)
    Other 17% (+4)
    Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023
    Sample: 1,520 GB adults
    (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)


    https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1694025320628728128

    Broken, sleazy Tories and Libdems on the slide!
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Mind you 26% is not much different to the current Tory voteshare.

    Yougov earlier this year had 44% of Conservative voters wanting to leave the ECHR, 35% to remain in it. Leavers also wanted to leave the ECHR 45% to 33% even if 55% of voters overall wanted to stay in the ECHR.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/07/ce218/1

    If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise

    I simply do not support leaving the ECHR not least as it would cause chaos with the WF and the GFA

    I do not think for one minute Sunak favours this right wing demand as he has put a lot into improving relationships with the EU and UVDL which at a stroke would be lost
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495

    FPT

    Just for a bit of fun, looked up the recently released "religion brought up in" stats for Census 2021 on the NISRA website. @HYUFD may be interested (horrified?) that his beloved County Antrim has lost its overall Protestant majority (rather a plurality now), only County Down currently has an outright Protestant majority.


    % Cath % Prot % oth % none
    Antrim 40.05 47.03 2.07 10.84
    Armagh 58.18 33.96 1.16 6.70
    Derry 61.30 32.51 0.94 5.25
    Down 32.27 53.54 1.53 12.66
    Fermanagh 58.82 35.48 1.07 4.63
    Tyrone 66.49 28.88 0.66 3.97
    https://build.nisra.gov.uk/en/custom/pivotdata?d=PEOPLE&r=data&v=COUNTY_NI&v=RELIGION_BELONG_TO_OR_BROUGHT_UP_IN_DVO&p=1
    So Protestants still the plurality in Antrim and majority in Down.

    Plus of course most polls show more Catholics and religious nones want to stay in the UK than Protestants want to leave it
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    ...

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Surely one of the key strands of Brexit was that if we elect a Government that installs an exciting new Home Secretary, who might one day be PM, and who thinks outside the box, she should be allowed to enact that blue skies thinking without fear of prejudice from a foreign body. If she wants to send Afghans to Rwanda or hang serial killers like Letby or dissenters like Starmer she should be perfectly entitled thus to do. She can't do any of those things if the ECHR decides to deny her the privilege.

    Not my view, but then I didn't vote Leave.
    Nope. We abide by a set of laws. The EHCR does not make laws, it simply interprets them in just the same way as any other court. As has already been pointed out ECHR rulings are usually about how Government's are acting outside of the laws they themselves have enacted or signed up to. The problem is that people like Patel or Braverman are so dumb they can't even make decisions which abide by their own laws which they swore to uphold.
    But post Brexit we claimed Parliament is sovereign. Is it still sovereign if after Parliamentary votes and exhaustive deliberation by the Supreme Court, and it was determined Suella's wizard wheezes are lawful, should , in the spirit of Brexit an external organisation adjudicate to the contrary?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this sufficiently Soviet?



    Around £14 per person though, for 15 hours from Kiev to Lviv.

    Right, what's a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?
    Compartment shared with a stranger or someone you know?
    Thankfully my wife. I think I’d have bought two tickets rather than share with a stranger.

    This is first first class by the way, the most expensive bed on the train. There’s also shared cabins and regular seated carriages, for those who really enjoy flying long-haul economy and want to replicate the experience!

    Off for a walk shortly, let’s see how much vodka costs from the buffet car. (Only joking, it cost $6 a litre from the supermarket earlier!)
    You realise you are now single-handedly bearing the exotic travelogue responsibility on this site now our regular travel supplement reporter has departed. I expect commentary on the "talent", the number of men with broken limbs, photos of well perched drinks, ponderings on the meaning of life etc.

    Long distance train journeys I find either really fun - some of the best, most meditative, most colourful travel out there - or really uncomfortable and boring. A lot seems to be down to how much space there is to walk around and how good the onboard catering is, if any. Plus the views, but I would say they are secondary as you generally get better ones from the road.
    Do you think you get better views from the road? Maybe it's because if I'm on the road I'm usually driving and therefore unable to appreciate the view, but I think views from the train tend to be better. You get much closer to city centres on a train than on a long distance road, and see a lot more human stuff (back gardens etc). In this country at least there tends to be more screening round a big road, obscuring the view. And on a train I think you are more likely to be elevated above the surrounding terrain. Windows tend to be bigger on trains too, and you are sat higher in the vehicle. Finally, on a train you get to see other train stuff! I was passed by a beautiful steam loco on the commute into Victoria this morning, for instance. Other road vehicles are much less interesting.
    I do. Much as I love trains, and with a couple of exceptions (like Dawlish Warren):

    - When they go through pretty country lowlands too much of the journey is spent in cutting when you can't see anything
    - They usually don't give you much of a sense of a city. Ether you're in deep cuttings or going through industrial suburbs, or in some countries like Italy usually skirting the city centre and stopping at a parkway
    - In the mountains they spend half the time in and out of tunnels making photography frustrating
    - In countries like India they usually don't go through the villages in the same way roads do

    The best thing with travelling by road for scenery is you can make detours, stop whenever you fancy to get out and look around, and drive right through the heart of towns and cities.

    But that's of course not true of motorways. The dullest journey I regularly make is the autoroute down from Calais to Burgundy. Almost unrelenting boringness. Though the TGV isn't much better to be fair.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,495
    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    It's also portrayed as both useless and insidiously powerful (in terms of people using it or the threat of it to derail things), and whilst there are reasons for both arguments it can come across as a muddled, confusing message.
    Its both but more the former than the latter.

    For countries that are prepared to disregard human rights it offers little to no protection as its so easily ignored. Hence how Putin's Russia could be full members of the Court as recently as January last year and would have remained so even without any free press or free elections had they not re-invaded Ukraine.

    For countries that are prepared to respect human rights then it can be a block to what people vote for or interpret things in novel ways.

    But as a safeguard, its not a particularly good one. Domestically ensuring human rights are respected is far better a safeguard.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    HYUFD said:

    Mind you 26% is not much different to the current Tory voteshare.

    Yougov earlier this year had 44% of Conservative voters wanting to leave the ECHR, 35% to remain in it. Leavers also wanted to leave the ECHR 45% to 33% even if 55% of voters overall wanted to stay in the ECHR.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/07/ce218/1

    If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise

    One silver lining of an increasingly loony Tory party is that they are so unpopular, if they hitch themselves to the ECHR departure cart they could help to drag down the idea with them. Like they've done to the reputation of Brexit (though that's more of a symbiotic relationship)
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
    Just rejoice at that news
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.

    I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
    The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Pulpstar said:

    Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200

    Stock prices are basically flat over the past two years while interest rates have climbed from near zero to over 5%. That's basically magic.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    kle4 said:

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    It's also portrayed as both useless and insidiously powerful (in terms of people using it or the threat of it to derail things), and whilst there are reasons for both arguments it can come across as a muddled, confusing message.
    "The enemy is both strong and weak"
  • Options

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.

    Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.

    The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
    The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
    We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.

    I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
    The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
    Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.

    No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.

    I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mind you 26% is not much different to the current Tory voteshare.

    Yougov earlier this year had 44% of Conservative voters wanting to leave the ECHR, 35% to remain in it. Leavers also wanted to leave the ECHR 45% to 33% even if 55% of voters overall wanted to stay in the ECHR.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/07/ce218/1

    If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise

    One silver lining of an increasingly loony Tory party is that they are so unpopular, if they hitch themselves to the ECHR departure cart they could help to drag down the idea with them. Like they've done to the reputation of Brexit (though that's more of a symbiotic relationship)
    Be simpler for the Tories to bring in the death sentence for people who are cruel to kittens, puppies, goldfish, etc. That really would be popular with a certain demographic. In fact, I don't know why they aren't already trailing it. The ultimate dead cat strategy, I suppose, come to think of it.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Lol.

    AM "One thing is looking pretty clear and that [is that] the days of Labour leads of 20% plus are no longer there and we are seeing a little bit of a recovery in the LDs totals"

    PM: Cons 25% Labour 50% LibDems 9%: Labour lead 25%

    Heathener: Pay NO attention to August polls
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sunak's a bit shit.

    Indeed. Should never have got rid of Truss.
    now the Tories are heading for about 150+
    In your dreams

    Sub 100 evens
  • Options

    ...

    On topic.

    The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.

    Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.

    Surely one of the key strands of Brexit was that if we elect a Government that installs an exciting new Home Secretary, who might one day be PM, and who thinks outside the box, she should be allowed to enact that blue skies thinking without fear of prejudice from a foreign body. If she wants to send Afghans to Rwanda or hang serial killers like Letby or dissenters like Starmer she should be perfectly entitled thus to do. She can't do any of those things if the ECHR decides to deny her the privilege.

    Not my view, but then I didn't vote Leave.
    Nope. We abide by a set of laws. The EHCR does not make laws, it simply interprets them in just the same way as any other court. As has already been pointed out ECHR rulings are usually about how Government's are acting outside of the laws they themselves have enacted or signed up to. The problem is that people like Patel or Braverman are so dumb they can't even make decisions which abide by their own laws which they swore to uphold.
    But post Brexit we claimed Parliament is sovereign. Is it still sovereign if after Parliamentary votes and exhaustive deliberation by the Supreme Court, and it was determined Suella's wizard wheezes are lawful, should , in the spirit of Brexit an external organisation adjudicate to the contrary?
    They adjudicated on the Government breaking their own laws. Just as any other court should also do. Now it might be that with the new Supreme Court and post the 1998 HRA the ECtHR is redundent but if we want to stay as signatories to the Convention - and I would suggest we do if only for the symbolism - then adherence to the ECtHR seems to me a sensible and necessary thing.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Heathener said:

    Lol.

    AM "One thing is looking pretty clear and that [is that] the days of Labour leads of 20% plus are no longer there and we are seeing a little bit of a recovery in the LDs totals"

    PM: Cons 25% Labour 50% LibDems 9%: Labour lead 25%

    Heathener: Pay NO attention to August polls
    Indeed. But only if we also add: 'pay no attention to August threads about polling'
This discussion has been closed.