The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.
You are doing the exact opposite of that.
I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
It's not hard to find jurors who haven't read anything an alleged victim has had to say about Brand. I'm one of them. There will be millions upon millions who skip past this kind of stuff.
Me too. That's until any capable defence team questions her evidence in the light of the fact that she took to the airwaves when the story broke with a screed about Brand's evil empire. Whereupon presumably she expands on her general critique, and completely undermines herself as a prosecution witness.
You realise that would disqualify you as a victim in court, as you have publicly expressed all manner of opinions ?
I don't think you understand the whole how the whole criminal justice thingy wingy (to coin a phrase) works.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
Silly question, perhaps, but you do know that "agile" is a methodological framework for how you run projects, right? Your post seems to imply it's just a meaningless buzz word but I'm not sure. Agile is a pretty good framework. It has its weaknesses to be sure, but one thing is clear: you do need SOME kind of framework when running a project. Otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets delivered. If not Agile, something else.
Like every other methodology, it’s been turned into a cult and a stupid buzzword striped of all the original meanings by betaminus minds in management.
It still actually works as a way of building software.
I was present for a speech by one of the originators of the PRINCE2 methodology. He spent quite some time apologising for how it had become a religion, rather than guidelines…
All methodologies melt in the heat of project delivery in my experience.
Agile done right - mostly by thinking of it at “agile” with a small a - works very well.
1) the ultimate result is always vague - an exact specification for something that hasn’t been built and will take a years work to get there… that’s for the birds 2) break things down into small, quantifiable tasks. 3) build up structures from the small pieces in a coherent way
Etc etc
Agile is really, at its core, about admitting that this is how things are actually done, and going with it, rather than trying to create a perfect specification at the start.
Whatever the rights and wrongs we appear to have yet another instance of a person virtually being found guilty by the media before any investigation has even started, you would have thought after Cliff Richard they would have learnt their lesson, but No. By highlighting it here,is this web site falling into the same trap?
I think the evidence put in the public domain about the two individuals is very, very different.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the Times piece or watched the programme, but is it Mason Greenwood style evidence?
I know nothing about football. Don't ask me football-related questions.
If you're interested, there are plenty of summaries available online about Brand.
Greenwood's girlfriend posted a picture of her face bloodied and a recording of him threatening to hurt her if she didn't have sex with him.
Basically, not just her word against his. I don't have a Sunday Times sub - is it more than their word against his?
Most of the allegations against Brand, as is the nature of these things, is their word against his, although clearly when it's several people making similar allegations, that is stronger evidence than a single person doing so. There are non-victim witnesses to inappropriate behaviour, although not to the most serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
Silly question, perhaps, but you do know that "agile" is a methodological framework for how you run projects, right? Your post seems to imply it's just a meaningless buzz word but I'm not sure. Agile is a pretty good framework. It has its weaknesses to be sure, but one thing is clear: you do need SOME kind of framework when running a project. Otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets delivered. If not Agile, something else.
Like every other methodology, it’s been turned into a cult and a stupid buzzword striped of all the original meanings by betaminus minds in management.
It still actually works as a way of building software.
I was present for a speech by one of the originators of the PRINCE2 methodology. He spent quite some time apologising for how it had become a religion, rather than guidelines…
All methodologies melt in the heat of project delivery in my experience.
True. And ice cream melts on a hot summer day. But it's still gooood
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
Is this really the thing you are most exercised about at the moment Big_G?
I am seeing people who can't pay their (recently doubled) mortgages, people who can't find anywhere to rent, people who can't get a doctor's appointment, etc. etc.
It's very nice of the Welsh Parliament to allow people in other parts of the UK to sign petitions, but it seems a bit counterproductive, since the whole point is to see what people in Wales think about things.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
Silly question, perhaps, but you do know that "agile" is a methodological framework for how you run projects, right? Your post seems to imply it's just a meaningless buzz word but I'm not sure. Agile is a pretty good framework. It has its weaknesses to be sure, but one thing is clear: you do need SOME kind of framework when running a project. Otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets delivered. If not Agile, something else.
Like every other methodology, it’s been turned into a cult and a stupid buzzword striped of all the original meanings by betaminus minds in management.
It still actually works as a way of building software.
I was present for a speech by one of the originators of the PRINCE2 methodology. He spent quite some time apologising for how it had become a religion, rather than guidelines…
All methodologies melt in the heat of project delivery in my experience.
True. And ice cream melts on a hot summer day. But it's still gooood
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
Yet. Because they didn't want to waste years trying to get all of that co-ordinated.
This new 20mph limit will barely be legally enforced - there are not remotely the resources to do so. I anticipate that just as with the 60 / 30 / 20 / 30 / 60 limit changes in places in Scotland, people will drive a little faster where the 30mph limit was questionable, and then slow down through the urban bit.
There is a simple truth. Overly-excessive 30mph limits are the responsibility of the council. The opt-out of the change from 30 to 20 is the responsibility of the council. So all of these incorrect speed limits are on councils, not the Senedd. Yet you endlessly blame the Senedd as part of your partisan dislike of Drakeford and Welsh Labour.
You're perfectly within your rights to dislike those things, this new policy, anything you like. But the championing of this luddite petition is what - hoping the anti-ULEZ magic will rub off on welsh Tories?
Whatever the rights and wrongs we appear to have yet another instance of a person virtually being found guilty by the media before any investigation has even started, you would have thought after Cliff Richard they would have learnt their lesson, but No. By highlighting it here,is this web site falling into the same trap?
I think the evidence put in the public domain about the two individuals is very, very different.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the Times piece or watched the programme, but is it Mason Greenwood style evidence?
I know nothing about football. Don't ask me football-related questions.
If you're interested, there are plenty of summaries available online about Brand.
Greenwood's girlfriend posted a picture of her face bloodied and a recording of him threatening to hurt her if she didn't have sex with him.
Basically, not just her word against his. I don't have a Sunday Times sub - is it more than their word against his?
Most of the allegations against Brand, as is the nature of these things, is their word against his, although clearly when it's several people making similar allegations, that is stronger evidence than a single person doing so. There are non-victim witnesses to inappropriate behaviour, although not to the most serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
As I said earlier, Benjamin Mendy and Alex Salmond say hello. I was fairly sure both would be convicted (though, I wasn't aware of Scottish law on this subject), but once I'd heard evidence during the court cases, I was fairly sure both would be acquitted.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
Is this really the ting you are most exercised about at the moment Big_G?
I am seeing people who can't pay their (recently doubled) mortgages, people who can't find anywhere to rent, people who can't get a doctor's appointment, etc. Is 20mph really such an issue?
It is an issue here in Wales as the petition now tops 150,000
This is sad, and serious, and under-reported. It also again demonstrates Putin's impotency. Azerbaijan are doing this because Russia are no longer able to support Armenia.
Whatever the rights and wrongs we appear to have yet another instance of a person virtually being found guilty by the media before any investigation has even started, you would have thought after Cliff Richard they would have learnt their lesson, but No. By highlighting it here,is this web site falling into the same trap?
I think the evidence put in the public domain about the two individuals is very, very different.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the Times piece or watched the programme, but is it Mason Greenwood style evidence?
I know nothing about football. Don't ask me football-related questions.
If you're interested, there are plenty of summaries available online about Brand.
Greenwood's girlfriend posted a picture of her face bloodied and a recording of him threatening to hurt her if she didn't have sex with him.
Basically, not just her word against his. I don't have a Sunday Times sub - is it more than their word against his?
Most of the allegations against Brand, as is the nature of these things, is their word against his, although clearly when it's several people making similar allegations, that is stronger evidence than a single person doing so. There are non-victim witnesses to inappropriate behaviour, although not to the most serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
No one, at this point, had any idea of whether or not Brand is guilty of the various things alleged against him.
Should they reach court, all the evidence will be weighed. That various individuals have commented publicly doesn't greatly alter that. Not does the fact that some of his accusers have criticised him in political terms.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
It's very nice of the Welsh Parliament to allow people in other parts of the UK to sign petitions, but it seems a bit counterproductive, since the whole point is to see what people in Wales think about things.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Whatever the rights and wrongs we appear to have yet another instance of a person virtually being found guilty by the media before any investigation has even started, you would have thought after Cliff Richard they would have learnt their lesson, but No. By highlighting it here,is this web site falling into the same trap?
I think the evidence put in the public domain about the two individuals is very, very different.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the Times piece or watched the programme, but is it Mason Greenwood style evidence?
I know nothing about football. Don't ask me football-related questions.
If you're interested, there are plenty of summaries available online about Brand.
Greenwood's girlfriend posted a picture of her face bloodied and a recording of him threatening to hurt her if she didn't have sex with him.
Basically, not just her word against his. I don't have a Sunday Times sub - is it more than their word against his?
Most of the allegations against Brand, as is the nature of these things, is their word against his, although clearly when it's several people making similar allegations, that is stronger evidence than a single person doing so. There are non-victim witnesses to inappropriate behaviour, although not to the most serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
As I said earlier, Benjamin Mendy and Alex Salmond say hello. I was fairly sure both would be convicted (though, I wasn't aware of Scottish law on this subject), but once I'd heard evidence during the court cases, I was fairly sure both would be acquitted.
Again, I know nothing about football.
Alex Salmond is a sex pest, and I say that with no fear of being sued for libel. I am glad that publicity has made this fact widely known, notwithstanding that he was found not guilty of any crime.
That's because the UK/Europe are interested in making people healthier and the US is interested in drug companies making money.
To be unbearably cynical, the UK/Europe are interested in box-ticking and the US are interested in not being sued. The making-people-healthier bit is a nice-to-have
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph. The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!! YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US. The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
"George Monbiot nominated Brand as his “hero of the year” in 2014. “Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers,” wrote Monbiot. “He’s the best thing that has happened to the Left in years.” But Brand’s “openness about his flaws” did not mean he was reformed. It was a strategic move to flannel those who were naive enough to confuse confession with salvation.
In 2015, Brand endorsed Ed Miliband (after previously telling his followers not to vote). “Russell Brand has endorsed Labour — and the Tories should be worried,” was the headline on an Owen Jones column. Brand returned the favour by blurbing Jones’s book The Establishment: “Owen Jones… is our generation’s Orwell and we must cherish him.”"
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph. The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!! YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US. The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
Do have to laugh.
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. And a 20 mph speed limit in built up areas.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Why are you reading so many articles in a newspaper you dislike?
Your kidding, right? What fun would it be only to read articles from Railway Modeller. Or does it surprise you that people, not you obvs, read other points of view.
One does not turn into a fulminating Colonel Blimp by reading papers one likes after all.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
I think you're under a misapprehension about what jury vetting involves in the UK.
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
"George Monbiot nominated Brand as his “hero of the year” in 2014. “Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers,” wrote Monbiot. “He’s the best thing that has happened to the Left in years.” But Brand’s “openness about his flaws” did not mean he was reformed. It was a strategic move to flannel those who were naive enough to confuse confession with salvation.
In 2015, Brand endorsed Ed Miliband (after previously telling his followers not to vote). “Russell Brand has endorsed Labour — and the Tories should be worried,” was the headline on an Owen Jones column. Brand returned the favour by blurbing Jones’s book The Establishment: “Owen Jones… is our generation’s Orwell and we must cherish him.”"
We have a by-election next month because a Conservative MP sexually assaulted people. A lot of people on the left got Brand wrong a decade ago, but at least they didn’t put him in the Commons.
Sexual harassment is a problem across the political spectrum. It shouldn’t be used for political point-scoring.
She's right. I remember being slightly bemused by many of the Guardian BTL comments at the time: basically Brand was the wronged hero and Andrew Sachs deserved all he got by being a racist who peddled xenophobic anti-Spanish stereotypes. (The unfortunate Georgina, as Marina says, was barely considered.)
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Why are you reading so many articles in a newspaper you dislike?
Your kidding, right? What fun would it be only to read articles from Railway Modeller. Or does it surprise you that people, not you obvs, read other points of view.
One does not turn into a fulminating Colonel Blimp by reading papers one likes after all.
OTOH, I seem to recall from my youth learning about the arguments about OO scale and the true authentic EM/Protofour to 1/76 scale. That would in itself turn anyone into a Blimp without reading anything else than Railway Modeller.
Whatever the rights and wrongs we appear to have yet another instance of a person virtually being found guilty by the media before any investigation has even started, you would have thought after Cliff Richard they would have learnt their lesson, but No. By highlighting it here,is this web site falling into the same trap?
I think the evidence put in the public domain about the two individuals is very, very different.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the Times piece or watched the programme, but is it Mason Greenwood style evidence?
I know nothing about football. Don't ask me football-related questions.
If you're interested, there are plenty of summaries available online about Brand.
Greenwood's girlfriend posted a picture of her face bloodied and a recording of him threatening to hurt her if she didn't have sex with him.
Basically, not just her word against his. I don't have a Sunday Times sub - is it more than their word against his?
Most of the allegations against Brand, as is the nature of these things, is their word against his, although clearly when it's several people making similar allegations, that is stronger evidence than a single person doing so. There are non-victim witnesses to inappropriate behaviour, although not to the most serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
No one, at this point, had any idea of whether or not Brand is guilty of the various things alleged against him.
Should they reach court, all the evidence will be weighed. That various individuals have commented publicly doesn't greatly alter that. Not does the fact that some of his accusers have criticised him in political terms.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
At this stage Brand has not been, so far as I know, subject to any legal process about all this - no arrest, questioning, investigation, charge, appearance.
In law as long as you are prepared to face the possibility of defamation action, there are no limits on what someone can allege or what discussion can occur. C4 and the Times have made some allegations, which if untrue would be defamatory. They are absolutely entitled to. Brand has his redress via the courts or the press/media complaints system.
The DMail has accused several people of murder in the Lawrence case, and put it on the front page. They were absolutely entitled to. Same here.
PB's situation is slightly different in that someone else (Mike Smithson) would be more likely than the defamatory contributor to face defamation action. I think we generally respect that fact.
I hope this will change but if these were the results of the next GE, it would be really difficult for the established parties. All of the parties claim they will not even work with the AfD let alone form a coalition with them.
Even a GroKo (big coalition) only reaches 43%, not close enough for a minority government. In 2013-2017 the GroKo had 80%.
The only feasible way to get to 50% is CDU+SPD+Green, which will be one hell of an ask to get to work. The Greens are already furious with the FDP in coalition government with open rows almost every week. Merz (CDU leader) is being extremely critical of all of the current government parties (uncharacteristic for mainstream German politics), and will find it hard to make friends after the election.
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph. The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!! YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US. The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
Do have to laugh.
I did wonder if they were typing that in with a green ribbon and single spaced with no margins when I read that last night. But I didn't as it seemed too unkind to BigG who had just flagged it up ...
"George Monbiot nominated Brand as his “hero of the year” in 2014. “Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers,” wrote Monbiot. “He’s the best thing that has happened to the Left in years.” But Brand’s “openness about his flaws” did not mean he was reformed. It was a strategic move to flannel those who were naive enough to confuse confession with salvation.
In 2015, Brand endorsed Ed Miliband (after previously telling his followers not to vote). “Russell Brand has endorsed Labour — and the Tories should be worried,” was the headline on an Owen Jones column. Brand returned the favour by blurbing Jones’s book The Establishment: “Owen Jones… is our generation’s Orwell and we must cherish him.”"
Using the search button to see what people said about Brand on here down the years, I have to admit I agreed with Owen Jones at the time - I thought an endorsement from Brand would be a boost to Labour at the GE
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
It's very nice of the Welsh Parliament to allow people in other parts of the UK to sign petitions, but it seems a bit counterproductive, since the whole point is to see what people in Wales think about things.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
I think you're under a misapprehension about what jury vetting involves in the UK.
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
The USA system generally goes more to town over jury selection. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to find a trial jury for Trump.
On 20mph zones. When I retired I moved into a large village/small town. There were 2 major roads meeting in the middle and everyone complained about the speed of through traffic. I started a petition asking for action and presented it to the council - nothing happened. Three years later I was elected to said council and within a year had persuaded the relevant officers that action was necessary. A sum of £80,000 was included in the next budget and we now have a 20mph zone with the necessary ramps and signal pedestrian crossings. Nobody complains about speed anymore - they complain about traffic jams!
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
And that is the whole point! Speed limits are set by your local council, yet you are ramping this petition which foams against Climate Change, Drakeford and the Senedd. Supposedly driving slower created armageddon! Actual Armageddon! Its laughable.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
And that is the whole point! Speed limits are set by your local council, yet you are ramping this petition which foams against Climate Change, Drakeford and the Senedd. Supposedly driving slower created armageddon! Actual Armageddon! Its laughable.
How is 20mph Armageddon doing against Protect the XL Doggies at the moment, I wonder?
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
I think you're under a misapprehension about what jury vetting involves in the UK.
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
The USA system generally goes more to town over jury selection. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to find a trial jury for Trump.
Which (?witch) trial? There is, AIUI, the likelihood of several.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
On 20mph zones. When I retired I moved into a large village/small town. There were 2 major roads meeting in the middle and everyone complained about the speed of through traffic. I started a petition asking for action and presented it to the council - nothing happened. Three years later I was elected to said council and within a year had persuaded the relevant officers that action was necessary. A sum of £80,000 was included in the next budget and we now have a 20mph zone with the necessary ramps and signal pedestrian crossings. Nobody complains about speed anymore - they complain about traffic jams!
20mph is one thing, but speed humps are an abomination.
All they do is encourage the proliferation of cars which can drive over speed humps faster.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
The issue seems to be more that the lady is positively telling the jury [edit] that they by implication don't need to pay attention to the evidence, when she says upp ofront they can go by conscience. Or so I imagine. Remember the Bristol statue-bathers' trial, which also saw a discoinnect between ervidence and verdict in the eyes of some. But I also look forward to seeing what PBlawyers have to say.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
I think you're under a misapprehension about what jury vetting involves in the UK.
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
Fair comment. But the process of random selection is likely to produce a reasonable balance of prior assumptions.
Without wishing in any way to inflame passions, I did some digging on road casualties in Wales over the last few years. Really good stats available here:
In a typical year fewer than 10 pedestrians are killed in RTA's in Wales. Serious injuries is higher, as would be expected but usually fewer than 50. Please note that this is only pedestrians, but the context is of 20mph is better as the chance of surviving or much reduced injury than at 30mph.
Its not possible to know where those deaths and accidents occurred (or at least I haven't looked for it).
No-one wants anyone injured or killed in a RTA. But you also need sensible policies and application. I believe councils have been able to apply for 20 mph limits in the past - if they were needed, why were they not in place?
I think the issue in Wales has been the application. I struggle to be convinced that that many lives will be saved and significant injuries avoided. How many of these are down to idiot driving, already breaking the law?
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph. The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!! YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US. The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
Do have to laugh.
I did wonder if they were typing that in with a green ribbon and single spaced with no margins when I read that last night. But I didn't as it seemed too unkind to BigG who had just flagged it up ...
Looks like Leon's work to me, with all those randomly scattered CAPITALISED words
Yes. There are several European countries who are pulling all the stops out now in terms of providing support.
I haven't heard anything about more equipment from the UK for a while, but perhaps we're all out of stuff to send.
Maybe, but we continue to train Ukrainian soldiers in my back garden (well not quite, but the machine gun fire sounds like it is at night!) The joys of living on Salisbury Plain...
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph. The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!! YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US. The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
Do have to laugh.
I did wonder if they were typing that in with a green ribbon and single spaced with no margins when I read that last night. But I didn't as it seemed too unkind to BigG who had just flagged it up ...
Looks like Leon's work to me, with all those randomly scattered CAPITALISED words
I can see what you are getting at. St Brides Major is indeed sort of near Penarth. But I don't think so. There are too many full stops. And too few commas, as well as a major solecism in the last paragraph.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.
You are doing the exact opposite of that.
I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?
You are a berk.
I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
Silly question, perhaps, but you do know that "agile" is a methodological framework for how you run projects, right? Your post seems to imply it's just a meaningless buzz word but I'm not sure. Agile is a pretty good framework. It has its weaknesses to be sure, but one thing is clear: you do need SOME kind of framework when running a project. Otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets delivered. If not Agile, something else.
Like every other methodology, it’s been turned into a cult and a stupid buzzword striped of all the original meanings by betaminus minds in management.
It still actually works as a way of building software.
I was present for a speech by one of the originators of the PRINCE2 methodology. He spent quite some time apologising for how it had become a religion, rather than guidelines…
All methodologies melt in the heat of project delivery in my experience.
Agile done right - mostly by thinking of it at “agile” with a small a - works very well.
1) the ultimate result is always vague - an exact specification for something that hasn’t been built and will take a years work to get there… that’s for the birds 2) break things down into small, quantifiable tasks. 3) build up structures from the small pieces in a coherent way
Etc etc
Agile is really, at its core, about admitting that this is how things are actually done, and going with it, rather than trying to create a perfect specification at the start.
I've worked on projects that have said they're using an Agile methodology, but actually all that means is that it's run as a waterfall project but no-one creates any specifications for you to work from. 18 months of a project, only two go-live dates, and requirements being changed at random at all times.
I'd say that all project managers can go and jump in the sea, but then when the contract for the PM isn't renewed in time and they disappear for a fortnight things actually manage to get worse.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
1) Some aspect of this slightly complex situation could easily become a big time case
2) There are separable elements here. Can a judge enforce limits on defence subject matter. (Provisional answer: yes but it should be rare and the defence allowed a lot of latitude. Defence lawyers know how to get round this, and defendants representing themselves can say stuff before being stopped, and can't be gagged. Juries know if someone is being bullied).
and
3) Can it be unlawful for anyone outside of court proceedings to try to draw a juror's attention to something which may relate to those proceedings? (Provisional answer: yes it sometimes, maybe generally, will be.)
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
The issue seems to be more that the lady is positively telling the jury [edit] that they by implication don't need to pay attention to the evidence, when she says upp ofront they can go by conscience. Or so I imagine. Remember the Bristol statue-bathers' trial, which also saw a discoinnect between ervidence and verdict in the eyes of some. But I also look forward to seeing what PBlawyers have to say.
That's what the headline is about, but that's a follow-on from judges forbidding defendants from mentioning climate change in their defence. Which I think is the more questionable bit.
If the judge forbids someone from referring to something in court, then it will pretty obviously be contempt to try to communicate that to the jury in some other way.
But should a judge be forbidding a defendant from talking about climate change when they're being prosecuted for their actions as part of a climate change protest?
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
On 20mph zones. When I retired I moved into a large village/small town. There were 2 major roads meeting in the middle and everyone complained about the speed of through traffic. I started a petition asking for action and presented it to the council - nothing happened. Three years later I was elected to said council and within a year had persuaded the relevant officers that action was necessary. A sum of £80,000 was included in the next budget and we now have a 20mph zone with the necessary ramps and signal pedestrian crossings. Nobody complains about speed anymore - they complain about traffic jams!
20mph is one thing, but speed humps are an abomination.
All they do is encourage the proliferation of cars which can drive over speed humps faster.
Unsurprising. As well as a (likely) tragedy in its own right, it muddies Ukrainian waters.
The aggressor is best pals with a longstanding NATO member, and Armenia has the "wrong" friends who won't help them as they've got too much on elsewhere (And probably wouldn't anyway). Azerbaijan will take what it wants.
On 20mph zones. When I retired I moved into a large village/small town. There were 2 major roads meeting in the middle and everyone complained about the speed of through traffic. I started a petition asking for action and presented it to the council - nothing happened. Three years later I was elected to said council and within a year had persuaded the relevant officers that action was necessary. A sum of £80,000 was included in the next budget and we now have a 20mph zone with the necessary ramps and signal pedestrian crossings. Nobody complains about speed anymore - they complain about traffic jams!
20mph is one thing, but speed humps are an abomination.
All they do is encourage the proliferation of cars which can drive over speed humps faster.
My Unimog could go over them at 60mph but my R35 GTR was so low I once had to make a 4 mile detour to bypass one. Swings and roundabouts.
Unsurprising. As well as a (likely) tragedy in its own right, it muddies Ukrainian waters.
The aggressor is best pals with a longstanding NATO member, and Armenia has the "wrong" friends who won't help them as they've got too much on elsewhere (And probably wouldn't anyway). Azerbaijan will take what it wants.
No doubt but it does take the shine off the "aggressors are evil" line we use with regard to Russia.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Had a great time travelling round there a few years ago. Enjoy!
Enticing part of the world. The origins of Catharism are so brilliantly mysterious. I’ve spent the last 3 days reading and finishing The Perfect Heresy so coming here is a great conclusion to the trip
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Why not put up a speed camera, with 50% of the revenues going to the Parish Council? The new roof on the village hall would be paid for in no time, by the sound of things.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
Ah. Well, I've actually never tried to use mine below 50kph.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Why not put up a speed camera, with 50% of the revenues going to the Parish Council? The new hall on the village roof would be paid for in no time, by the sound of things.
Cameras are a top level council function, who are desperate to get all the money they can for social care so I doubt any parish council receives any revenue from any speed camera anywhere.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Once you're used to driving at 20 you know exactly how fast it is.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
Could do with a cruise control speed limit button on the steering wheel, F1 style.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
I think you're under a misapprehension about what jury vetting involves in the UK.
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
The USA system generally goes more to town over jury selection. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to find a trial jury for Trump.
I'm not actually sure it will take too long.
As I understand jury selection in the US (although it varies a bit by state), you have two types of rejection - strike for cause, and peremptory strike.
On the first of these, although the lawyers will ask questions (and it's presumably pretty stressful for the potential juror) the judge manages this including for relevance and drawing questioning to a close, and it's the judge who ultimately decides if the juror is capable of rendering an impartial verdict. For example, the prosecution might argue that someone simply having voted for Trump (but not having donated, gone to a rally, put up a yard sign, or commented on election interference via social media) makes them unable to render an impartial verdict - but a judge can, and might well, disagree so that person is on.
The second is more fun as the lawyers don't need to give a reason - they just say "not him" and he's out. But they don't get many of those - I think the defence gets ten and prosecution six - once you've used them, you're out of lives, and there's some risk when the next juror walks in that you wish you'd not used them so rashly.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
Why are you so caught up in this? The police/fire/local council awareness campaign is no great drama, it's nothing that the emergency services haven't been doing for years. Are you still going to claim that firefighters will be enforcing this?
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.
You are doing the exact opposite of that.
I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?
You are a berk.
I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
He's not a berk, he just acts like one almost every time he opines about anything.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
Some cars also have the facility to set a maximum speed - which usually does not have that limit.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
Same with mine, a min of 25MPH and a max of 143MPH. I have many times done the former and never got anywhere near the latter.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
The issue seems to be more that the lady is positively telling the jury [edit] that they by implication don't need to pay attention to the evidence, when she says upp ofront they can go by conscience. Or so I imagine. Remember the Bristol statue-bathers' trial, which also saw a discoinnect between ervidence and verdict in the eyes of some. But I also look forward to seeing what PBlawyers have to say.
That's what the headline is about, but that's a follow-on from judges forbidding defendants from mentioning climate change in their defence. Which I think is the more questionable bit.
If the judge forbids someone from referring to something in court, then it will pretty obviously be contempt to try to communicate that to the jury in some other way.
But should a judge be forbidding a defendant from talking about climate change when they're being prosecuted for their actions as part of a climate change protest?
Underlying this issue is part of the English legal tradition. It is the case that historically a jury can acquit someone because they want to and not because they have a defence in law. This happened a bit in the 17th century; recent examples may include Clive Ponting.
The climate (and other) protest thing has opened this up anew. The belief that activity X is causing the end of the world usually won't constitute a defence to offence Y in law, but a jury may decide that it should. There was a bit of this in the Bristol statue case (slavery not climate change being the issue).
In order to use a defence that isn't one in law you have to manage to slip it into your evidence somewhere. The establishment will want to stop this.
What has not yet happened (wait for it) is a statutory power for the Court of Appeal to substitute a guilty verdict for an acquittal in a case where, as a matter of law, there was no defence.
Jury acquittals remain final and absolute for now. On balance I think it should remain so. But one day there will be a case which massively raises the question.
I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.
Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
Some cars also have the facility to set a maximum speed - which usually does not have that limit.
Mrs DA's iX has it, but it's 6 layers deep in the menu to set it. She would have wiped out a bus stop full of school kids by the time she finished arsing about setting it.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
Why are you so caught up in this? The police/fire/local council awareness campaign is no great drama, it's nothing that the emergency services haven't been doing for years. Are you still going to claim that firefighters will be enforcing this?
Regarding S Korean expressways, based on the experience of a couple of weeks.
They are usually (outside of Seoul) only two lanes, not three. Speed limits are a bit lower than the UK, varying between 100 and 110 kph. Outside of (frequent) camera zones, they are widely ignored.
The are lots and lots of tunnels, thanks to the geography. In the longer ones, they have coloured lights, cunningly designed rumble strips which play tunes, and loud recorded messages, to stop you falling asleep.
There are regular tolls - get a HiPass card if you don't want to queue.
Since 1972, they have banned ALL motorbikes on expressways.
They paint coloured strips to help you identify the right lanes for turnoffs, which is gear for navigational idiots like me.
Despite the urban legends from ways back, public toilets at rest stops are far cleaner than the average in the UK.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.
You are doing the exact opposite of that.
I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
It's not hard to find jurors who haven't read anything an alleged victim has had to say about Brand. I'm one of them. There will be millions upon millions who skip past this kind of stuff.
Me too. That's until any capable defence team questions her evidence in the light of the fact that she took to the airwaves when the story broke with a screed about Brand's evil empire. Whereupon presumably she expands on her general critique, and completely undermines herself as a prosecution witness.
As a juror, I wouldn't be moved by the mere fact that someone had gone on the TV to talk about their alleged victimhood. There are several sensible reasons why a real victim might want to do that. Fine if the defence want to question their motives during the case. I imagine that they would be questioning the motivation and veracity of the allegations in any case.
What we shouldn't do is assume that a real victim wouldn't act in this or that way. Some victims will shut up and retreat into themselves. Some will be fired up to take the bad guy down. Some might reluctantly go on record to protect others. Some might even want to turn it into a pay day. The important thing is that "victim" isn't a category that supposed or requires uniform, homogeneous responses. What matters is the facts of the case, not the subsequent behaviour of the alleged victim.
Certain responses, or lack of, are required to ensure a fair trial. The general animus and political stance taken vis-à-vis Brand on National Radio casts doubt, possibly reasonable doubt, on her testimony, which given the age of the case, may well be the only evidence of the crime.
Without wishing in any way to inflame passions, I did some digging on road casualties in Wales over the last few years. Really good stats available here:
In a typical year fewer than 10 pedestrians are killed in RTA's in Wales. Serious injuries is higher, as would be expected but usually fewer than 50. Please note that this is only pedestrians, but the context is of 20mph is better as the chance of surviving or much reduced injury than at 30mph.
Its not possible to know where those deaths and accidents occurred (or at least I haven't looked for it).
No-one wants anyone injured or killed in a RTA. But you also need sensible policies and application. I believe councils have been able to apply for 20 mph limits in the past - if they were needed, why were they not in place?
I think the issue in Wales has been the application. I struggle to be convinced that that many lives will be saved and significant injuries avoided. How many of these are down to idiot driving, already breaking the law?
The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:
If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.
So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.
It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.
* This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.
Drove across my first 3D painted zebra crossing last week in Slovenia. I'd read about them and seen the photos on the web, but it still made me take the foot off the pedal when I saw it in the road ahead. At least the first time.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.
That's precisely the Drake's policy!
Read what I said
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
So that's your only quibble? They don't have a lead in period?
Honestly.
The quibble is Welsh Labour and Mark Drakeford. Lets just call out what it is. Its up to the councils to set valid speed limits. Many reportedly have 30mph sections on basically rural roads.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Yep, and no local councillor in their right mind is going to campaign for speed limits to go up in their wards.
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
You are just wrong and wholly unfair
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
Why are you so caught up in this? The police/fire/local council awareness campaign is no great drama, it's nothing that the emergency services haven't been doing for years. Are you still going to claim that firefighters will be enforcing this?
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
Is there something I'm missing about this story? On the face of it seems astonishing that a judge can say people can't mention certain things when talking to the jury that are relevant to their motivation.
On 20mph zones. When I retired I moved into a large village/small town. There were 2 major roads meeting in the middle and everyone complained about the speed of through traffic. I started a petition asking for action and presented it to the council - nothing happened. Three years later I was elected to said council and within a year had persuaded the relevant officers that action was necessary. A sum of £80,000 was included in the next budget and we now have a 20mph zone with the necessary ramps and signal pedestrian crossings. Nobody complains about speed anymore - they complain about traffic jams!
20mph is one thing, but speed humps are an abomination.
All they do is encourage the proliferation of cars which can drive over speed humps faster.
We have speed tables rather than sleeping policemen.
Comments
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial
That is not happening here
I don't think you understand the whole how the whole criminal justice thingy wingy (to coin a phrase) works.
1) the ultimate result is always vague - an exact specification for something that hasn’t been built and will take a years work to get there… that’s for the birds
2) break things down into small, quantifiable tasks.
3) build up structures from the small pieces in a coherent way
Etc etc
Agile is really, at its core, about admitting that this is how things are actually done, and going with it, rather than trying to create a perfect specification at the start.
One of the allegations is of rape. The woman concerned was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times confirmed via medical records.
I am seeing people who can't pay their (recently doubled) mortgages, people who can't find anywhere to rent, people who can't get a doctor's appointment, etc. etc.
Is 20mph really such an issue?
https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/245548/map?view=countries&count=signatures
Come on.
This new 20mph limit will barely be legally enforced - there are not remotely the resources to do so. I anticipate that just as with the 60 / 30 / 20 / 30 / 60 limit changes in places in Scotland, people will drive a little faster where the 30mph limit was questionable, and then slow down through the urban bit.
There is a simple truth. Overly-excessive 30mph limits are the responsibility of the council. The opt-out of the change from 30 to 20 is the responsibility of the council. So all of these incorrect speed limits are on councils, not the Senedd. Yet you endlessly blame the Senedd as part of your partisan dislike of Drakeford and Welsh Labour.
You're perfectly within your rights to dislike those things, this new policy, anything you like. But the championing of this luddite petition is what - hoping the anti-ULEZ magic will rub off on welsh Tories?
Of course other matters are important
Should they reach court, all the evidence will be weighed. That various individuals have commented publicly doesn't greatly alter that. Not does the fact that some of his accusers have criticised him in political terms.
Any prospective jurors likely to be swayed by what they've already read about the case are unlikely to make it through jury selection.
The new policy changes 30 to 20 as a blanket. You can't leave it to councils as they will take 400 years and get speed limits wrong as we've just noted. So its a national policy where implementation is directly on the council.
So the target of blame for inappropriate 30 limits is on the council. The target of blame for the lack of opting certain sections out of the new 20 is on the council. The inability to set an appropriate speed limit is on the council.
But we don't like Labour and hope for a Welsh Tory revival, so...
Alex Salmond is a sex pest, and I say that with no fear of being sued for libel. I am glad that publicity has made this fact widely known, notwithstanding that he was found not guilty of any crime.
Top 5 largest suppliers of tanks to #Ukraine 🇺🇦
1: Poland - ~325
2: Germany - 90+
3: The Netherlands - 85 (Despite owning 0 tanks)
4: Denmark - 85
5: U.S. - 76
Altogether, Ukraine has received commitments for just under 900 tanks.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1704073658929406200
Denmark, and the Netherlands - wow.
(Thanks for the video btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHMB3vroas , which I found interesting)
People want to drive though other people's neighbourhoods at speed, not their own. BigG actually lives in an LTN himself, yet is furious about not driving at 30mph everywhere else.
The new 20mph law is coming into force on the 17th September and it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales.
Welsh Government claim to have supporting evidence stating that reducing to 20mph EVERWHERE saves lives! Yet we get flyers merely claiming that it will, and opinions from doctors that see RTCs coming into A&E. This is NOT evidence. The only true evidence is from Belfast and it states it makes NO DIFFERENCE to RTCs!
At least one of the trial villages in Monmouthshire actually reverted their trial because it was causing absolute carnage on the roads! Mark Drakeford has come out claiming it is a success in St Brides Major but every time I go though there NO ONE is driving at 20mph.
The Welsh Government has FAILED to produce ANY convincing evidence to support these claims of safety. This law is being spearheaded by the WG Climate Change department and NOT Health & Safety!!
YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US.
The Welsh Government was put there BY THE PEOPLE OF WALES, We are your boss! We demand that this foolish idea be stopped.
Bit mouth-foamy isn't it! The first sentence demonstrates just how mouth-foamy the author was, thrashing away at their keyboard. "it will mark the end of having socialism in power in Wales" - huh? Does he mean it will be the start of removing "socialism" from power? Or that socialism will be ended by this and thus socialism opposes it?
Some ranting about WG evidence being rubbing whilst showing they don't understand what evidence is or making any actual counter with other evidence. A trial erversed cos it caused absolute carnage! How exactly?
Finger Climate Change - cos thats all a lie see - and point out We are your boss! Except that if you are a mouth-foaming Welsh Tory, you're very much in the minority.
Do have to laugh.
In 2015, Brand endorsed Ed Miliband (after previously telling his followers not to vote). “Russell Brand has endorsed Labour — and the Tories should be worried,” was the headline on an Owen Jones column. Brand returned the favour by blurbing Jones’s book The Establishment: “Owen Jones… is our generation’s Orwell and we must cherish him.”"
https://unherd.com/2023/09/the-noughties-enabled-russell-brand/
The defence or prosecution get a jury list and can apply to the judge to have someone disqualified, but it's very rare and a really high bar to be disqualified - as well as the obvious over mental illness and recent offences of your own, the only real route is that the juror personally knows a witness or the accused. Knowing them by reputation and having an opinion of them just won't get you there.
Jurors have to swear an oath that they will decide conscientiously based on the evidence, and might be guided away by a judge (e.g. if Brand ever went on trial a judge might ask that potential jurors working in the TV or film industry exclude themselves in case it becomes a problem during the trial, notwithstanding that they never personally worked with Brand).
But this idea of jurors being grilled on what they've seen or heard about a case which has had media coverage, and what they thought about it, just isn't part of the British system.
Sexual harassment is a problem across the political spectrum. It shouldn’t be used for political point-scoring.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support
She's right. I remember being slightly bemused by many of the Guardian BTL comments at the time: basically Brand was the wronged hero and Andrew Sachs deserved all he got by being a racist who peddled xenophobic anti-Spanish stereotypes. (The unfortunate Georgina, as Marina says, was barely considered.)
In law as long as you are prepared to face the possibility of defamation action, there are no limits on what someone can allege or what discussion can occur. C4 and the Times have made some allegations, which if untrue would be defamatory. They are absolutely entitled to. Brand has his redress via the courts or the press/media complaints system.
The DMail has accused several people of murder in the Lawrence case, and put it on the front page. They were absolutely entitled to. Same here.
PB's situation is slightly different in that someone else (Mike Smithson) would be more likely than the defamatory contributor to face defamation action. I think we generally respect that fact.
Even a GroKo (big coalition) only reaches 43%, not close enough for a minority government. In 2013-2017 the GroKo had 80%.
The only feasible way to get to 50% is CDU+SPD+Green, which will be one hell of an ask to get to work. The Greens are already furious with the FDP in coalition government with open rows almost every week. Merz (CDU leader) is being extremely critical of all of the current government parties (uncharacteristic for mainstream German politics), and will find it hard to make friends after the election.
I do not want to drive at 30mph everywhere and largely are in favour of 20mph zones, but the implementation in North Wales is not as I described in Dunkeld
There will be changes and some 30mph will re reinstated
There is, AIUI, the likelihood of several.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/protester-who-held-sign-outside-london-climate-trial-prosecuted
Would the lawyers of pb.com have anything to add?
All they do is encourage the proliferation of cars which can drive over speed humps faster.
But the process of random selection is likely to produce a reasonable balance of prior assumptions.
And there are some checks in juror misconduct.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/juror-misconduct-offences
I haven't heard anything about more equipment from the UK for a while, but perhaps we're all out of stuff to send.
https://gov.wales/police-recorded-road-collisions-interactive-dashboard
In a typical year fewer than 10 pedestrians are killed in RTA's in Wales. Serious injuries is higher, as would be expected but usually fewer than 50. Please note that this is only pedestrians, but the context is of 20mph is better as the chance of surviving or much reduced injury than at 30mph.
Its not possible to know where those deaths and accidents occurred (or at least I haven't looked for it).
No-one wants anyone injured or killed in a RTA. But you also need sensible policies and application. I believe councils have been able to apply for 20 mph limits in the past - if they were needed, why were they not in place?
I think the issue in Wales has been the application. I struggle to be convinced that that many lives will be saved and significant injuries avoided. How many of these are down to idiot driving, already breaking the law?
I'd say that all project managers can go and jump in the sea, but then when the contract for the PM isn't renewed in time and they disappear for a fortnight things actually manage to get worse.
2) There are separable elements here. Can a judge enforce limits on defence subject matter. (Provisional answer: yes but it should be rare and the defence allowed a lot of latitude. Defence lawyers know how to get round this, and defendants representing themselves can say stuff before being stopped, and can't be gagged. Juries know if someone is being bullied).
and
3) Can it be unlawful for anyone outside of court proceedings to try to draw a juror's attention to something which may relate to those proceedings? (Provisional answer: yes it sometimes, maybe generally, will be.)
If the judge forbids someone from referring to something in court, then it will pretty obviously be contempt to try to communicate that to the jury in some other way.
But should a judge be forbidding a defendant from talking about climate change when they're being prosecuted for their actions as part of a climate change protest?
Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.
So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
Conspiracy Theorists Are Rushing To Defend Russell Brand Over Sex Abuse Claims
Just asking.
Now, a nice cold beer
Edit: And a heads up display...
As I understand jury selection in the US (although it varies a bit by state), you have two types of rejection - strike for cause, and peremptory strike.
On the first of these, although the lawyers will ask questions (and it's presumably pretty stressful for the potential juror) the judge manages this including for relevance and drawing questioning to a close, and it's the judge who ultimately decides if the juror is capable of rendering an impartial verdict. For example, the prosecution might argue that someone simply having voted for Trump (but not having donated, gone to a rally, put up a yard sign, or commented on election interference via social media) makes them unable to render an impartial verdict - but a judge can, and might well, disagree so that person is on.
The second is more fun as the lawyers don't need to give a reason - they just say "not him" and he's out. But they don't get many of those - I think the defence gets ten and prosecution six - once you've used them, you're out of lives, and there's some risk when the next juror walks in that you wish you'd not used them so rashly.
If Musk imposes a pay to use regime, the only people on there will be the kind who signed the 20mph petition.
The climate (and other) protest thing has opened this up anew. The belief that activity X is causing the end of the world usually won't constitute a defence to offence Y in law, but a jury may decide that it should. There was a bit of this in the Bristol statue case (slavery not climate change being the issue).
In order to use a defence that isn't one in law you have to manage to slip it into your evidence somewhere. The establishment will want to stop this.
What has not yet happened (wait for it) is a statutory power for the Court of Appeal to substitute a guilty verdict for an acquittal in a case where, as a matter of law, there was no defence.
Jury acquittals remain final and absolute for now. On balance I think it should remain so. But one day there will be a case which massively raises the question.
Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?
https://news.sky.com/story/fire-service-staff-to-stop-speeding-motorists-in-wales-ahead-of-new-20mph-speed-limit-12931695
They are usually (outside of Seoul) only two lanes, not three.
Speed limits are a bit lower than the UK, varying between 100 and 110 kph. Outside of (frequent) camera zones, they are widely ignored.
The are lots and lots of tunnels, thanks to the geography. In the longer ones, they have coloured lights, cunningly designed rumble strips which play tunes, and loud recorded messages, to stop you falling asleep.
There are regular tolls - get a HiPass card if you don't want to queue.
Since 1972, they have banned ALL motorbikes on expressways.
They paint coloured strips to help you identify the right lanes for turnoffs, which is gear for navigational idiots like me.
Despite the urban legends from ways back, public toilets at rest stops are far cleaner than the average in the UK.
If, purely hypothetically, one were to enter a Welsh postcode that wasn't one's own, would there be any comeback?
War On Car stuff polls and similar often get abused.
(See this, from Conservative Friends of Cycling, a name which ought to trigger almost everyone:
https://www.cfoc.org.uk/index.php/2021/10/09/how-pro-car-extremists-cheated-a-cambridgeshire-consultation-and-won/)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution
If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.
So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.
It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.
* This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.
How is this different from preventing fires by educational activities, such as inspections and advice on smoke alarms?
Especially as many crashes end in fires.