The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
What’s your evidence that political considerations often tip the balance? Would you like to point to a specific case?
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
But it wont be.
Because, as George Osborne points out in his new podcast, there would be years and years of planning, reviews, commissions, assessments and so on before any serious money on actual northern rail infrastructure is spent.
So the money saved will be banked for tax cuts with a few million left to fund the endless planning inquiries and so on.
It might be a decade before Northern rail spends actual money on track.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
The criteria have not changed. See my post upthread re the tests applied by the CPS before someone is charged.
Police officers have been responsible for the deaths of people without needing to be armed. If they don't wish to have the responsibility and personal risk that comes with being expected to follow the law like all of us, they should not be police officers.
I don't think any group, ipso facto, should be exempt from compliance with the law.
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
There are plenty of options other than creating a subsidy for landlords.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
The slumlords are unaffected. They just carry on doing what they do, they ignore all this. Local authorities have limited enforcement powers and few resources so mostly the 'slumlords' are operating under the radar. A decade or so ago I worked for a Council that tried to serve a prohibition notice on a guy who was renting out a room in a builders yard to a couple that was by any objective definition uninhabitable and unsafe, no planning, no building regs, etc. The landlord couldn't speak english very well but represented himself in the proceedings and he won the case, he persuaded the judge that he would make all the improvements. I doubt he ever did but the main reason the Council went to court was because the tenants were disabled so we had to try.
The energy efficiency rules do absolutely nothing to address bad landlords because they ignore all the rules anyway. The properties do get sold so there is no change in the housing stock, but there is nothing stopping a slumlord buying it when it goes up for sale.
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
There are plenty of options other than creating a subsidy for landlords.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
The slumlords are unaffected. They just carry on doing what they do, they ignore all this. Local authorities have limited enforcement powers and few resources so mostly the 'slumlords' are operating under the radar. A decade or so ago I worked for a Council that tried to serve a prohibition notice on a guy who was renting out a room in a builders yard to a couple that was by any objective definition uninhabitable and unsafe, no planning, no building regs, etc. The landlord couldn't speak english very well but represented himself in the proceedings and he won the case, he persuaded the judge that he would make all the improvements. I doubt he ever did but the main reason the Council went to court was because the tenants were disabled so we had to try.
The energy efficiency rules do absolutely nothing to address bad landlords because they ignore all the rules anyway. The properties do get sold so there is no change in the housing stock, but there is nothing stopping a slumlord buying it when it goes up for sale.
That criminals sometimes get away with it is no reason not to have laws or standards.
The responsibility of the state is not to operate as builder, developer, landlord and everything else. The responsibility of the state is to set standards then let individuals within a free market to operate within those standards. If anyone wants to act outside the law, then they may get away with it or may get caught and face consequences.
However slumlords selling up which is what you were objecting to is no problem. If every single person who doesn't want to invest in meeting minimum standards were to sell up then that wouldn't be problematic whatsoever, it would be good news. The buildings are still standing and can be purchased by those who are willing to invest in their housing's quality.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
What’s your evidence that political considerations often tip the balance? Would you like to point to a specific case?
May be it was poorly phrased. I was trying to make the point that you get social media campaigns these days, often based around partial/misleading video clips. In those circumstances it is naturally harder for the CPS to say “no” to a charge.
To be clear, I have no knowledge of the details of this particular case and am not commenting on it
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
The criteria have not changed. See my post upthread re the tests applied by the CPS before someone is charged.
Police officers have been responsible for the deaths of people without needing to be armed. If they don't wish to have the responsibility and personal risk that comes with being expected to follow the law like all of us, they should not be police officers.
I don't think any group, ipso facto, should be exempt from compliance with the law.
There is a difference between criteria and the way that they are applied.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
Yes, we do. But @Cyclefree is criticising the police on the grounds that the CPS are perfect and are not influenced by external pressure
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
I struggle with the idea that they should be forced to carry on with firearms duties. It is an option for them to walk away and they have. Obviously if you are carrying a firearm and going in to confrontational situations as a police officer then an 'error of judgement' can have the potential to be regarded as murder in legal terms. That is the way people expect it to be and the police should not be exempted from such a charge. But I think it will make it very hard to find people to volunteer for the job.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
The CPS may well be as useless as, seemingly, every other organisation.
But if counsel for the policeman thinks the first test has not been met, that can be challenged before a judge before any trial starts. The second test could - I assume - be judicially reviewable too.
What I take objection to is the idea that even if these tests have been properly applied a police officer should still not be charged because .... well, why exactly?
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
I struggle with the idea that they should be forced to carry on with firearms duties. It is an option for them to walk away and they have. Obviously if you are carrying a firearm and going in to confrontational situations as a police officer then an 'error of judgement' can have the potential to be regarded as murder in legal terms. That is the way people expect it to be and the police should not be exempted from such a charge. But I think it will make it very hard to find people to volunteer for the job.
Good.
People should volunteer for the job because they want to take the responsibility seriously, not because they think it comes with a blank cheque to fire at will.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
The CPS may well be as useless as, seemingly, every other organisation.
But if counsel for the policeman thinks the first test has not been met, that can be challenged before a judge before any trial starts. The second test could - I assume - be judicially reviewable too.
What I take objection to is the idea that even if these tests have been properly applied a police officer should still not be charged because .... well, why exactly?
There’s nothing in the article that says that is the contention of the officers. Instead it says:
"Many are worried about how the decision impacts on them, on their colleagues and on their families.
"They are concerned that it signals a shift in the way the decisions they take in the most challenging circumstances will be judged.
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
There are plenty of options other than creating a subsidy for landlords.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
The slumlords are unaffected. They just carry on doing what they do, they ignore all this. Local authorities have limited enforcement powers and few resources so mostly the 'slumlords' are operating under the radar. A decade or so ago I worked for a Council that tried to serve a prohibition notice on a guy who was renting out a room in a builders yard to a couple that was by any objective definition uninhabitable and unsafe, no planning, no building regs, etc. The landlord couldn't speak english very well but represented himself in the proceedings and he won the case, he persuaded the judge that he would make all the improvements. I doubt he ever did but the main reason the Council went to court was because the tenants were disabled so we had to try.
The energy efficiency rules do absolutely nothing to address bad landlords because they ignore all the rules anyway. The properties do get sold so there is no change in the housing stock, but there is nothing stopping a slumlord buying it when it goes up for sale.
That criminals sometimes get away with it is no reason not to have laws or standards.
The responsibility of the state is not to operate as builder, developer, landlord and everything else. The responsibility of the state is to set standards then let individuals within a free market to operate within those standards. If anyone wants to act outside the law, then they may get away with it or may get caught and face consequences.
However slumlords selling up which is what you were objecting to is no problem. If every single person who doesn't want to invest in meeting minimum standards were to sell up then that wouldn't be problematic whatsoever, it would be good news. The buildings are still standing and can be purchased by those who are willing to invest in their housing's quality.
It is compliant landlords that are selling up, not slumlords, or non-compliant landlords as they may be more accurately described. But anyway, there is no 'good' or 'bad' in any of this. The point is if you want to create a raft of policies that cumulatively lead to private landlords exiting the private rental market, then you need a plan to deal with the people who are made homeless as a result. That is what is lacking and you have no answer to, because your solution is to 'deregulate planning', which would not deal with the immediate problem.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
If he cancels it, it'll mean the country walk I normally do won't be turned into a building site. Although I support the project despite that.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
Yes, we do. But @Cyclefree is criticising the police on the grounds that the CPS are perfect and are not influenced by external pressure
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
That is not the basis of my criticism. It is the idea that a group should simply by virtue of a job requiring them to make difficult split second judgment calls should therefore be exempt from following the law just like the rest of us.
Who else should be afforded this privilege? Doctors? Nurses? Paramedics? Ambulance drivers? Taxi drivers? Anyone driving because it is part of their job? Soldiers?
The Met police have - for far too long - given the impression that the law is something they need not bother with, that they can act with impunity.
It might be worth reminding ourselves what the Casey Report said about the Firearms Unit of the Met - see here, for instance: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65017475.
The HS2 shambles is shaping up to being a national tragedy.
Build the fucking thing.
Build it with through trains to the great cities of continental Europe.
From the great cities of the English north. From Liverpool. From Manchester. From Sheffield. From Nottingham. From Newcastle. From Leeds.
To Paris. To London. To Amsterdam. To Brussels.
Build it. And stopping fucking about.
How can it possibly cost £8 billion to build a railway from Birmingham to Manchester?
Probably things like: compensation for people whose homes need demolishing. Paying for surveys for rare wildlife that might be affected. Paying for all the lawyers involved in organising everything.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
My sweet summer child
It gets worse.
Looks like Sunak will announce HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common and not Euston.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
My sweet summer child
It gets worse.
Looks like Sunak will announce HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common and not Euston.
He’s an absolute fucking twat if he does that.
I shall vote Labour in protest.
At least that covers up the stupidity of it not connecting directly to Eurostar (though they have already cut down all the beautiful Plane Trees, as @Leon pointed out 😞)
Would it possible to do a HS1 link while not doing Euston? Might be a good compromise on cost, particularly given Old Oak has good connections to Heathrow and Crossrail.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
The HS2 shambles is shaping up to being a national tragedy.
Build the fucking thing.
Build it with through trains to the great cities of continental Europe.
From the great cities of the English north. From Liverpool. From Manchester. From Sheffield. From Nottingham. From Newcastle. From Leeds.
To Paris. To London. To Amsterdam. To Brussels.
Build it. And stopping fucking about.
Well, this was the whole point of HS2. I can remember seeing adverts 20 years ago saying you'd able to get on a train in Leeds, B'ham or Manchester and go all the way through to Paris or Brussels without having to get off the train. They messed that up about 5 years ago by saying everyone would have to get off at Euston and walk down the road with their luggage to St Pancras.
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
There are plenty of options other than creating a subsidy for landlords.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
The slumlords are unaffected. They just carry on doing what they do, they ignore all this. Local authorities have limited enforcement powers and few resources so mostly the 'slumlords' are operating under the radar. A decade or so ago I worked for a Council that tried to serve a prohibition notice on a guy who was renting out a room in a builders yard to a couple that was by any objective definition uninhabitable and unsafe, no planning, no building regs, etc. The landlord couldn't speak english very well but represented himself in the proceedings and he won the case, he persuaded the judge that he would make all the improvements. I doubt he ever did but the main reason the Council went to court was because the tenants were disabled so we had to try.
The energy efficiency rules do absolutely nothing to address bad landlords because they ignore all the rules anyway. The properties do get sold so there is no change in the housing stock, but there is nothing stopping a slumlord buying it when it goes up for sale.
That criminals sometimes get away with it is no reason not to have laws or standards.
The responsibility of the state is not to operate as builder, developer, landlord and everything else. The responsibility of the state is to set standards then let individuals within a free market to operate within those standards. If anyone wants to act outside the law, then they may get away with it or may get caught and face consequences.
However slumlords selling up which is what you were objecting to is no problem. If every single person who doesn't want to invest in meeting minimum standards were to sell up then that wouldn't be problematic whatsoever, it would be good news. The buildings are still standing and can be purchased by those who are willing to invest in their housing's quality.
It is compliant landlords that are selling up, not slumlords, or non-compliant landlords as they may be more accurately described. But anyway, there is no 'good' or 'bad' in any of this. The point is if you want to create a raft of policies that cumulatively lead to private landlords exiting the private rental market, then you need a plan to deal with the people who are made homeless as a result. That is what is lacking and you have no answer to, because your solution is to 'deregulate planning', which would not deal with the immediate problem.
Anyone neglecting their home so they can't meet the bare minimum of a C energy rating is a slumlord.
A C standard isn't a perfect rating with perfect insulation and solar panels, its a bare minimum pass grade. If you're less than that, then good riddance..
Nobody is made homeless as a result of landlords exiting the private rental market, the net change in number of buildings standing is zero. Changing the number of buildings standing by zero doesn't affect the amount of homelessness whatsoever, if you want to deal with the shortage of housing the only solution is to build more houses.
Why you seem to be under the delusion that more landlords equals more buildings is beyond me. More buildings equals more buildings, that is all.
The HS2 shambles is shaping up to being a national tragedy.
Build the fucking thing.
Build it with through trains to the great cities of continental Europe.
From the great cities of the English north. From Liverpool. From Manchester. From Sheffield. From Nottingham. From Newcastle. From Leeds.
To Paris. To London. To Amsterdam. To Brussels.
Build it. And stopping fucking about.
Well, this was the whole point of HS2. I can remember seeing adverts 20 years ago saying you'd able to get on a train in Leeds, B'ham or Manchester and go all the way through to Paris or Brussels without having to get off the train. They messed that up about 5 years ago by saying everyone would have to get off at Euston and walk down the road with their luggage to St Pancras.
The most infuriating thing with the rail system in Glasgow too. Crazy they are going to replicate it.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
Yes, we do. But @Cyclefree is criticising the police on the grounds that the CPS are perfect and are not influenced by external pressure
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
Cyclefree is doing no such thing.
It's an irrational argument to say that prosecutions should never be brought unless the CPS is 'perfect'.
The counter argument is that in the past, the police have literally been getting away with murder.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
Your willingness to believe the best of people does you credit, Big_G, even if it somewhat selectively applied in favour of your preferred political party.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
Yes, we do. But @Cyclefree is criticising the police on the grounds that the CPS are perfect and are not influenced by external pressure
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
That is not the basis of my criticism. It is the idea that a group should simply by virtue of a job requiring them to make difficult split second judgment calls should therefore be exempt from following the law just like the rest of us.
Who else should be afforded this privilege? Doctors? Nurses? Paramedics? Ambulance drivers? Taxi drivers? Anyone driving because it is part of their job? Soldiers?
The Met police have - for far too long - given the impression that the law is something they need not bother with, that they can act with impunity.
It might be worth reminding ourselves what the Casey Report said about the Firearms Unit of the Met - see here, for instance: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65017475.
As far as I can see you are the only person who has made that contention
The BBC is referring to individual officers being concerned about the risk to them and their families and the feeling (which is where it becomes a little political) that they do not have the backing of senior officers. Which is not the same as saying they should have carte blanche to act as they will. But they are entirely to due process and a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of their actions
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
You have more confidence in the CPS than I do!
If the CPS charge someone who shouldn't be charged, then we have juries to deal with that too.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
Yes, we do. But @Cyclefree is criticising the police on the grounds that the CPS are perfect and are not influenced by external pressure
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
Cyclefree is doing no such thing.
It's an irrational argument to say that prosecutions should never be brought unless the CPS is 'perfect'.
The counter argument is that in the past, the police have literally been getting away with murder.
And that’s not what I am arguing.
Essentially the officers are saying the scales are tipped against them, and the consequences of a charge (whether merited or not) are significant, so why put their families through that
Just watched an hour of Barbie, and then turned it off.
What a pile of shite.
I am not surprised that you didn't get it.
I said I thought it was a pile of shite, not that I didn't "get" its remarkably sophisticated, multilayered and deeply moving plot - which was, of course, a tour de force of intelligent and thought-provoking writing.
Ryan Gosling was by far the best in it, good dancer and quite funny at times, but the rest of the film was banal, vacuous and painfully contrived.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
If he does he will, like Shapps, be lying to the House because without HS2’s and indeed HS3’s capacity improvements there can’t be big change in rail services in the north.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
you’d need to make it four times as wide to do that!
Comments
Because, as George Osborne points out in his new podcast, there would be years and years of planning, reviews, commissions, assessments and so on before any serious money on actual northern rail infrastructure is spent.
So the money saved will be banked for tax cuts with a few million left to fund the endless planning inquiries and so on.
It might be a decade before Northern rail spends actual money on track.
Police officers have been responsible for the deaths of people without needing to be armed. If they don't wish to have the responsibility and personal risk that comes with being expected to follow the law like all of us, they should not be police officers.
I don't think any group, ipso facto, should be exempt from compliance with the law.
The energy efficiency rules do absolutely nothing to address bad landlords because they ignore all the rules anyway.
The properties do get sold so there is no change in the housing stock, but there is nothing stopping a slumlord buying it when it goes up for sale.
The responsibility of the state is not to operate as builder, developer, landlord and everything else. The responsibility of the state is to set standards then let individuals within a free market to operate within those standards. If anyone wants to act outside the law, then they may get away with it or may get caught and face consequences.
However slumlords selling up which is what you were objecting to is no problem. If every single person who doesn't want to invest in meeting minimum standards were to sell up then that wouldn't be problematic whatsoever, it would be good news. The buildings are still standing and can be purchased by those who are willing to invest in their housing's quality.
Nobody acts as judge, jury and executioner in our system. Unless a rogue cop kills someone extrajudicially that is.
To be clear, I have no knowledge of the details of this particular case and am not commenting on it
If the officer is guilty then of course they should be charged and prosecuted. But an incorrect charge has a massively deleterious impact on the mental health of the officer and their families. If the probability of an incorrect charge being brought has increased I can understand why an individual officer would decide it’s not worth it to expose their family to that risk
But if counsel for the policeman thinks the first test has not been met, that can be challenged before a judge before any trial starts. The second test could - I assume - be judicially reviewable too.
What I take objection to is the idea that even if these tests have been properly applied a police officer should still not be charged because .... well, why exactly?
People should volunteer for the job because they want to take the responsibility seriously, not because they think it comes with a blank cheque to fire at will.
"Many are worried about how the decision impacts on them, on their colleagues and on their families.
"They are concerned that it signals a shift in the way the decisions they take in the most challenging circumstances will be judged.
Who else should be afforded this privilege? Doctors? Nurses? Paramedics? Ambulance drivers? Taxi drivers? Anyone driving because it is part of their job? Soldiers?
The Met police have - for far too long - given the impression that the law is something they need not bother with, that they can act with impunity.
It might be worth reminding ourselves what the Casey Report said about the Firearms Unit of the Met - see here, for instance: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65017475.
Looks like Sunak will announce HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common and not Euston.
He’s an absolute fucking twat if he does that.
I shall vote Labour in protest.
Would it possible to do a HS1 link while not doing Euston? Might be a good compromise on cost, particularly given Old Oak has good connections to Heathrow and Crossrail.
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
A C standard isn't a perfect rating with perfect insulation and solar panels, its a bare minimum pass grade. If you're less than that, then good riddance..
Nobody is made homeless as a result of landlords exiting the private rental market, the net change in number of buildings standing is zero. Changing the number of buildings standing by zero doesn't affect the amount of homelessness whatsoever, if you want to deal with the shortage of housing the only solution is to build more houses.
Why you seem to be under the delusion that more landlords equals more buildings is beyond me. More buildings equals more buildings, that is all.
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
It's an irrational argument to say that prosecutions should never be brought unless the CPS is 'perfect'.
The counter argument is that in the past, the police have literally been getting away with murder.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
NEW THREAD
The BBC is referring to individual officers being concerned about the risk to them and their families and the feeling (which is where it becomes a little political) that they do not have the backing of senior officers. Which is not the same as saying they should have carte blanche to act as they will. But they are entirely to due process and a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of their actions
Essentially the officers are saying the scales are tipped against them, and the consequences of a charge (whether merited or not) are significant, so why put their families through that
Ryan Gosling was by far the best in it, good dancer and quite funny at times, but the rest of the film was banal, vacuous and painfully contrived.