Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
Add to that, yesterday’s newspaper front pages were all about Sunak’s big fight back today? Did you notice a big fight back today.
If anything, seeing him so tired and looking unwell, makes you wonder how much fight is left.
And tonight’s front pages have a different tone “PM Mourdant for election? Not so daft as you might think” says both Isabel Hard an and Sean O Grady.
Ruthless Tories shooting Labours fox again, if this swap out denies them a majority. 😈
But then again, Labour not getting a majority will be down to their own lack of Tory ruthlessness in sticking with Corbyn and allowing him to take them down to 200 seats, just too much to get back in one go. 😇
Good job that Rishi didn't call the election last week, eh? Doing so would have sealed him in place until his inevitable defeat on May 2.
I dont know what the palace are playing at. Just release a close up video of kate talking to the camera and put the rumours to bed.
That is indeed a very good point.
Not really. It doesn't matter what the rumour mill is doing.
People believe all kinds of batshit crazy stuff online. Kate is already dead and they're doing a Royal Weekend at Bernie's, the moon landings were faked, Covid vaccines cause BA pilot deaths, Trump won the last election, Putin has a justification for his special military operation, Rishi Sunak should be Prime Minister.
Posit any strange thing online and someone will agree with it, no matter how farcical.
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
It doesn’t seem rational does it?
It’s strange because in so many other activities, particularly in sports coaching methods/gambling, process has become far more important than result. Yet a man who stabs someone viciously enough that the victim would die without immediate medical help would get a lesser sentence if a surgeon happened to be passing by, despite his ill intent. Crazy really, I’d like to see the law changed
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
Add to that, yesterday’s newspaper front pages were all about Sunak’s big fight back today? Did you notice a big fight back today.
If anything, seeing him so tired and looking unwell, makes you wonder how much fight is left.
And tonight’s front pages have a different tone “PM Mourdant for election? Not so daft as you might think” says both Isabel Hard an and Sean O Grady.
Ruthless Tories shooting Labours fox again, if this swap out denies them a majority. 😈
But then again, Labour not getting a majority will be down to their own lack of Tory ruthlessness in sticking with Corbyn and allowing him to take them down to 200 seats, just too much to get back in one go. 😇
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
Add to that, yesterday’s newspaper front pages were all about Sunak’s big fight back today? Did you notice a big fight back today.
If anything, seeing him so tired and looking unwell, makes you wonder how much fight is left.
And tonight’s front pages have a different tone “PM Mourdant for election? Not so daft as you might think” says both Isabel Hard an and Sean O Grady.
Ruthless Tories shooting Labours fox again, if this swap out denies them a majority. 😈
But then again, Labour not getting a majority will be down to their own lack of Tory ruthlessness in sticking with Corbyn and allowing him to take them down to 200 seats, just too much to get back in one go. 😇
You can get a really great price on no majority. Lump all your liquid assets on it. Best of luck.
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
When things couldn’t be worse, they can — as that man in the big white shirt once sang — only get better. Which means, in a way, that you can do whatever you like. Take Penny Mordaunt, and this idea that the Conservatives should bung her into Downing Street as a last-minute, pre-election PM. A good idea? Obviously not. Utterly bonkers. And yet, would it actually make the actual election go any worse? Hmm. Perhaps not.
Park the Conservatives generally, though, and think only of Rishi Sunak. He too is at rock bottom. He too could not be doing worse. And so, given that he can now do almost whatever he wants, one thought is obsessing me. Which is why on earth he doesn’t.
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
Saying Kate looks better when it’s actually the mistress is…embarrassing.
Who are all these people? I remember someone called Liz, who shook hands with Liz, then Liz died and then Penny held a sword up while Liz panicked and some guy had some wool gloves and a heavy hat or something? And now... Rose is on the scene? Like Dr.Who?
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
They would take a 1997 result at this point. They think Starmer is terrible and so would hope to recover quicker than the 13 years it took after that time.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Mind you got to have some sympathies for the burglar who broke into Duncan Fergusons home and got caught by him. 😂😂😂😂
Rishi Sunak ordered the RAF to send a helicopter 210 miles from Northolt to his home in Yorkshire yesterday, so he could fly 145 miles to Coventry this morning, just to make a seven-minute speech. This is why he's in a spiral; it's the constant refusal to listen, learn or change.
This speaks to a wider point. It isn't just Sunak. It's the wider Conservative Party who are guilty of that. The public keep telling them services are in the toilet. Yet they keep trumpeting tax cuts. The last one failed. As did the one before that. So. The plan is for another before an election. It's an ideology, imbued with a hazy folk memory of Thatcher. The political equivalent of "Computer says No!"
Tories generally, and the Tory Right in particular, are obsessed with tax cuts. However, I'm not so sure that this narrative about the public prioritising public spending over tax cuts is all it's cracked up to be.
People understand that public services aren't working and need more money. So, why isn't Labour romping to an epochal victory on the back of promises to hike taxes to pay for loads of stuff?
It's because of the same old problem. Everyone wants the spending, but everyone also thinks that it's other people's responsibility to pay for it, not theirs.
As soon as you target one group of voters to cough up, they revolt because they are special flowers who should be singularly exempt from suffering. It's why the main achievement of the NI reduction was to piss off pensioners. They didn't get any benefit so felt hard done by.
The enthusiasm for paying for more stuff lasts precisely as long as people are asked to pay for more stuff. Then they flounce off in a huff to whoever is promising they won't have to pay for more stuff.
We are told this is the Conservative voter's "wish list":
Small but effective government fiscal sense pro business let people get on with their own lives
I've no idea what "Small but Effective Government" means - how small, how effective, define effective, how do you measure whether it's effective or not? Central Government? Local Government?
"Fiscal sense" - in terms of reducing the deficit and debt, I'd agree but that won't be achieved by tax cuts but a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts so which taxes get raised, what gets cut? Are we looking to have the public finances in surplus or are we aiming to start paying back the debt? What about the increased defence spending everyone seems to want to deal with a Russian military threat which looks a shade exaggerated?
"Pro Business"? I'd prefer pro consumer and certainly much more stringent regulation on some of the companies owning our utilities and some of the larger service companies - pro small business, yes, reasonable to a point.
"Let people get on with their lives" - how are people not able to do that? What is it people can't do they'd like to do? Should we, like the Germans, abolish motorway speed limits so people can drive as fast as they like? Regulatory checks on gamblers? Certainly divisive but not perhaps the apocolyptic scenario some would suggest.
Are you alright? Why have you posted three bullet points of your own making, then followed it with big long arguments demanding that someone explain your own bullet points?
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
Add to that, yesterday’s newspaper front pages were all about Sunak’s big fight back today? Did you notice a big fight back today.
If anything, seeing him so tired and looking unwell, makes you wonder how much fight is left.
And tonight’s front pages have a different tone “PM Mourdant for election? Not so daft as you might think” says both Isabel Hard an and Sean O Grady.
Ruthless Tories shooting Labours fox again, if this swap out denies them a majority. 😈
But then again, Labour not getting a majority will be down to their own lack of Tory ruthlessness in sticking with Corbyn and allowing him to take them down to 200 seats, just too much to get back in one go. 😇
Good job that Rishi didn't call the election last week, eh? Doing so would have sealed him in place until his inevitable defeat on May 2.
Tories are only looking to avoid meltdown from this one, they only need to rise to 32 or 33 % , looking at the full fat 20 point gaps is misleading people. Look at Shares not gaps, see the Tory target as 32%, and it’s not that difficult for an April campaign. There’s something about British people that got used to spring elections not pre Christmas ones, it’s like pavlovs dogs right now. Tories can forget getting much reform back after the summer of boat crossings.
Are there any PBers who still thinks Rwanda flights happening will win back more voters than lose? It’s surely possible flights becoming real will costs Tories votes and seats in balance?
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
Add to that, yesterday’s newspaper front pages were all about Sunak’s big fight back today? Did you notice a big fight back today.
If anything, seeing him so tired and looking unwell, makes you wonder how much fight is left.
And tonight’s front pages have a different tone “PM Mourdant for election? Not so daft as you might think” says both Isabel Hard an and Sean O Grady.
Ruthless Tories shooting Labours fox again, if this swap out denies them a majority. 😈
But then again, Labour not getting a majority will be down to their own lack of Tory ruthlessness in sticking with Corbyn and allowing him to take them down to 200 seats, just too much to get back in one go. 😇
Good job that Rishi didn't call the election last week, eh? Doing so would have sealed him in place until his inevitable defeat on May 2.
I noticed that Elizabeth Anne-Moutet in the Telegraph has suddenly turned into Howard Cox complete with a full bingo card of made-up tropes.
Something to do with being 64, and the Telegraph's new Youff Representative?
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Yes, that’s my amateur understanding of attempted murder. If you do something violent knowing full well it could cause death and you don’t stop then that is attempted murder
THEORY: the photos are of Kate, she’s OK, but Russian bots are altering them to mess with our heads and make us think it isn’t her. Just as they tried to pretend the King was dead this morning. This is the new AI post-truth world where nothing can be trusted, ever again
Rishi Sunak ordered the RAF to send a helicopter 210 miles from Northolt to his home in Yorkshire yesterday, so he could fly 145 miles to Coventry this morning, just to make a seven-minute speech. This is why he's in a spiral; it's the constant refusal to listen, learn or change.
This speaks to a wider point. It isn't just Sunak. It's the wider Conservative Party who are guilty of that. The public keep telling them services are in the toilet. Yet they keep trumpeting tax cuts. The last one failed. As did the one before that. So. The plan is for another before an election. It's an ideology, imbued with a hazy folk memory of Thatcher. The political equivalent of "Computer says No!"
Tories generally, and the Tory Right in particular, are obsessed with tax cuts. However, I'm not so sure that this narrative about the public prioritising public spending over tax cuts is all it's cracked up to be.
People understand that public services aren't working and need more money. So, why isn't Labour romping to an epochal victory on the back of promises to hike taxes to pay for loads of stuff?
It's because of the same old problem. Everyone wants the spending, but everyone also thinks that it's other people's responsibility to pay for it, not theirs.
As soon as you target one group of voters to cough up, they revolt because they are special flowers who should be singularly exempt from suffering. It's why the main achievement of the NI reduction was to piss off pensioners. They didn't get any benefit so felt hard done by.
The enthusiasm for paying for more stuff lasts precisely as long as people are asked to pay for more stuff. Then they flounce off in a huff to whoever is promising they won't have to pay for more stuff.
Oh sure. But they aren't fools. The correct strategy is a brutal first budget whereby absolutely everyone has to suffer. A majority of 100+ would allow that. Will they be brave enough? Doubt it.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
I remember phoning the police while I had my back pinned to the door while some nutters tried to kick it in.
Six hours later two police turned up. "Did you see who it was?" "... No. I had my back to the door." "Well, not much we can do then."
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
THEORY: the photos are of Kate, she’s OK, but Russian bots are altering them to mess with our heads and make us think it isn’t her. Just as they tried to pretend the King was dead this morning. This is the new AI post-truth world where nothing can be trusted, ever again
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference? D I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
I remember phoning the police while I had my back pinned to the door while some nutters tried to kick it in.
Six hours later two police turned up. "Did you see who it was?" "... No. I had my back to the door." "Well, not much we can do then."
And they wandered off.
Dreadful stuff indeed.
Though with today's police it could have been even worse - that might have said 'Ah yes, that must have been Crazy Bob, from our community outreach team'.
THEORY: the photos are of Kate, she’s OK, but Russian bots are altering them to mess with our heads and make us think it isn’t her. Just as they tried to pretend the King was dead this morning. This is the new AI post-truth world where nothing can be trusted, ever again
Yes i saw the false rumours of the king being dead. Those russian bots are sneaky little things. What is real what is fake. Who knows.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
And by autumn 1979 Labour were back in front in polls again with the tough economic decisions Thatcher had to take, indeed by December 1980 Michael Foot's Labour was on 56% with Gallup.
The end of 1981 saw the SDP ahead and it was only by early 1982 and especially with the outbreak of the Falklands War that Thatcher's government really opened a clear poll lead that led the way to her 1983 landslide re election
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
They would take a 1997 result at this point. They think Starmer is terrible and so would hope to recover quicker than the 13 years it took after that time.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
Thatcher had a long run. New Labour had a long run. Since 2010 we've had at least two distinct periods of Conservative government, arguably more. The Tories have only managed to stay in government for 14 years because they've spun on a sixpence and run against their recent record.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
And by autumn 1979 Labour were back in front in polls again with the tough economic decisions Thatcher had to take, indeed by December 1980 Michael Foot's Labour was on 56% with Gallup.
The end of 1981 saw the SDP ahead and it was only by early 1982 and especially with the outbreak of the Falklands War that Thatcher's government really opened a clear poll lead that led the way to her 1983 landslide re election
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
They would take a 1997 result at this point. They think Starmer is terrible and so would hope to recover quicker than the 13 years it took after that time.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
Thatcher had a long run. New Labour had a long run. Since 2010 we've had at least two distinct periods of Conservative government, arguably more. The Tories have only managed to stay in government for 14 years because they've spun on a sixpence and run against their recent record.
Granted, but reinventing yourself to say in power is a valid strategy for long term electoral success.
Their main issue is they needed another reinvention, but the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle has severely undercut any attempt at such a reinvention, without being able to credibly try a 'stick with the plan' strategy.
Someone is agreeing with me! The election this one will most resemble is 1979. A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
And by autumn 1979 Labour were back in front in polls again with the tough economic decisions Thatcher had to take, indeed by December 1980 Michael Foot's Labour was on 56% with Gallup.
The end of 1981 saw the SDP ahead and it was only by early 1982 and especially with the outbreak of the Falklands War that Thatcher's government really opened a clear poll lead that led the way to her 1983 landslide re election
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Yes, that’s my amateur understanding of attempted murder. If you do something violent knowing full well it could cause death and you don’t stop then that is attempted murder
I don’t see how this guy escaped the charge
PLUS he critically injured someone else!
AUI that's not quite right - Attempted Murder requires an Intent to Kill, not a knowledge that it might result in a killing.
There are quite often problems around driving offences and proving intent. Here intent to drive dangerously is very clear, but he could plead "just trying to force him off the road, to an attempted murder charge".
Were they doing an Offences Against the Person (I think that's the phrase) charge, it may have been some variety of manslaughter.
Happy to be corrected.
This intent point *could* be different in Scottish law; there are some strange dictinctions on both sides for extreme motoring or against-the-person offences.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
We are told this is the Conservative voter's "wish list":
Small but effective government fiscal sense pro business let people get on with their own lives
I've no idea what "Small but Effective Government" means - how small, how effective, define effective, how do you measure whether it's effective or not? Central Government? Local Government?
"Fiscal sense" - in terms of reducing the deficit and debt, I'd agree but that won't be achieved by tax cuts but a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts so which taxes get raised, what gets cut? Are we looking to have the public finances in surplus or are we aiming to start paying back the debt? What about the increased defence spending everyone seems to want to deal with a Russian military threat which looks a shade exaggerated?
"Pro Business"? I'd prefer pro consumer and certainly much more stringent regulation on some of the companies owning our utilities and some of the larger service companies - pro small business, yes, reasonable to a point.
"Let people get on with their lives" - how are people not able to do that? What is it people can't do they'd like to do? Should we, like the Germans, abolish motorway speed limits so people can drive as fast as they like? Regulatory checks on gamblers? Certainly divisive but not perhaps the apocolyptic scenario some would suggest.
Too many things to answer in a post, I simply indicate the direction of travel we need. There are no overnight solutions where we are, it will take at least a decade to get back on our feet.
My ideas on reducing worse-than-useless process, and making government more productive and consumer friendly could be seen as meat for either party.
Yes. We could ask why HMG needs nearly 6 million employees at a time when the real economy needs a bigger workforce. Or why we need to load young people up with loads of debt at university when entering the workforce will serve us all better.
They all they want to make the "difficult decisions" but none of them do.
Nice to know that you don't think teachers in state schools, and health workers, are doing real jobs. Or the armed forces, or the police.
Don't forget all those dreadful diversity and inclusion officers whom the Chancellor has identified as being an important driver of the impending collapse in England's entire system of local government.
Getting rid of them all would've saved 0.02% of the budget of Birmingham City Council. Or 0.00% of that of stricken Thurrock. Transformative sums, I'm sure we'll all agree.
It's post like that that explain why we have a productivity problem. If you were in a factory and had reduced your costs by 0.02% you'd call it a good days work. You'd then go off and look for another 0.02% tomorrow,
Great business people - and I've known a few - are exactly like that: how do I make my business a tiny bit better today. They iterate, iterate, iterate. They try thing, change things, and are always striving - one tiny step at a time - to improve things.
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
They would take a 1997 result at this point. They think Starmer is terrible and so would hope to recover quicker than the 13 years it took after that time.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
Thatcher had a long run. New Labour had a long run. Since 2010 we've had at least two distinct periods of Conservative government, arguably more. The Tories have only managed to stay in government for 14 years because they've spun on a sixpence and run against their recent record.
Granted, but reinventing yourself to say in power is a valid strategy for long term electoral success.
Their main issue is they needed another reinvention, but the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle has severely undercut any attempt at such a reinvention, without being able to credibly try a 'stick with the plan' strategy.
Point being isn't whether the Labour Party can prevent the Tory party from returning to government until the late 2030s, but whether the electorate has the patience to allow the Labour party to pursue a set of policies that don't immediately deliver a rapid turnaround in the nation's fortunes.
I don't believe the electorate has that patience, and so I expect that Labour will either be turfed out of office fairly rapidly, or they will lurch in a different direction to avoid that fate.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
That’s hideous. More sympathies!
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
Interesting quick scan, 679ner, pointer and Sandy (the latter who I think actually is in Labour Party despite being one of the most culturally right wing PBers) desperately pouring cold water on Sunak’s removal and replaced by the blank sheet “Mrs Moore” Mourdant.
Correct me if this sudden about shift I think has happened isn’t true - It’s Labour now terrified of this Black Swan swap out, and desperate to keep Sunak as Tory leader on General Election day, whereas Sunak’s usual defenders, having digested latest polls, have gone quiet? 🤐
The consistent 20 point leads having ticked up a notch. Terrified isn't the correct adjective.
Sleep well on those 20 point leads tonight, you only have 200 seats and that polling is a mirage once it becomes a two horse race. 😘
Thirty one percent is what Major and Hague got in '97 and '01.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
They would take a 1997 result at this point. They think Starmer is terrible and so would hope to recover quicker than the 13 years it took after that time.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
The difficulty for them is that assuming a 97 result, the Tories' problems are much more difficult to recover from. There's a whole generation under 40 which has spent their working lives under Tory governments and associates them with decline, wage stagnation, a housing crisis, and having no answers but insults towards them. Cohorts that should start voting Tory by wealth, age, social groups, have just stopped doing so. They're a pitiful joke at best, and malignant otherwise.
Their flagship policy - arguably their only achievement of serious note - is extremely unpopular and even more so among those of working age. One which cannot be ditched or modified with the party as is without an unsurvivable split.
If Labour manage almost any incremental improvement in the state of the nation and avoid disasters, a 2028/29 campaign already writes itself - don't let the people who broke Britain have the chance to do it again, we're doing our best to clean up their mess.
It would take much more than Cameron's rebranding exercise to overcome that. It's going to stick with people.
The additional fear should be that as a party have become so toxic among those below pensionable age, those who are younger who do turn to the right in response to Labour failures, turn to new parties without the baggage, stuffiness, and blotted copybook- as has happened in Europe.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Yes, that’s my amateur understanding of attempted murder. If you do something violent knowing full well it could cause death and you don’t stop then that is attempted murder
I don’t see how this guy escaped the charge
PLUS he critically injured someone else!
AUI that's not quite right - Attempted Murder requires an Intent to Kill, not a knowledge that it might result in a killing.
There are quite often problems around driving offences and proving intent. Here intent to drive dangerously is very clear, but he could plead "just trying to force him off the road, to an attempted murder charge".
Were they doing an Offences Against the Person (I think that's the phrase) charge, it may have been some variety of manslaughter.
Happy to be corrected.
This intent point *could* be different in Scottish law; there are some strange dictinctions on both sides for extreme motoring or against-the-person offences.
I'm also interested in the short ban. He will presumably be out of prison in about 3 years.
He was also disqualified from driving for four years and 10 months and will need to take an extended retest before getting his licence back.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
That’s hideous. More sympathies!
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
GRRRR
Indeed. He was convicted of GBH which theoretically has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but yeah his actual sentence was six months and he'd have been out after two probably.
Sadly, I very much doubt I was his last victim either. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he seriously hurt others after that slap on the wrist too, who knows?
Since that happened to me at 22, I've never since had any faith in the judicial system. Never seen anything since to change my mind.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Indeed, you are right - and certainly I can't see any political party bailing out the Conservatives (with the possible exception of ReFUK.)
On a more general point, though, I really ought to try to get my head around the electoral politics of the 1920s and 30s. Too many people, too many issues, too many hatreds and no clear path through the morass.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Yes, that’s my amateur understanding of attempted murder. If you do something violent knowing full well it could cause death and you don’t stop then that is attempted murder
I don’t see how this guy escaped the charge
PLUS he critically injured someone else!
AUI that's not quite right - Attempted Murder requires an Intent to Kill, not a knowledge that it might result in a killing.
There are quite often problems around driving offences and proving intent. Here intent to drive dangerously is very clear, but he could plead "just trying to force him off the road, to an attempted murder charge".
Were they doing an Offences Against the Person (I think that's the phrase) charge, it may have been some variety of manslaughter.
Happy to be corrected.
This intent point *could* be different in Scottish law; there are some strange dictinctions on both sides for extreme motoring or against-the-person offences.
Could be for attempted murder which is still a common law crime up here. The definition I have given is that of Scots law. Road Traffic is a UK Act however and is pretty much identical both sides of the border.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
That’s hideous. More sympathies!
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
GRRRR
Indeed. He was convicted of GBH which theoretically has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but yeah his actual sentence was six months and he'd have been out after two probably.
Sadly, I very much doubt I was his last victim either. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he seriously hurt others after that slap on the wrist too, who knows?
Since that happened to me at 22, I've never since had any faith in the judicial system. Never seen anything since to change my mind.
I suspect he pleaded guilty at first hearing, which gets you a third off your sentence although he still did get 6 months in custody
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
Yes, watching that video it's hard to understand how that doesn't qualify as attempted murder:
Sentence feels too short; GBH with intent is a very serious offence; but attempted murder is, of all crimes, the toughest to prove as (unlike murder) requires proof of an intent to kill - which would be unlikely to succeed here.
It is sufficient to have a reckless indifference as to the consequences and I don’t see how that could be seriously disputed here. It’s pure luck this wasn’t murder.
Yes, that’s my amateur understanding of attempted murder. If you do something violent knowing full well it could cause death and you don’t stop then that is attempted murder
I don’t see how this guy escaped the charge
PLUS he critically injured someone else!
AUI that's not quite right - Attempted Murder requires an Intent to Kill, not a knowledge that it might result in a killing.
There are quite often problems around driving offences and proving intent. Here intent to drive dangerously is very clear, but he could plead "just trying to force him off the road, to an attempted murder charge".
Were they doing an Offences Against the Person (I think that's the phrase) charge, it may have been some variety of manslaughter.
Happy to be corrected.
This intent point *could* be different in Scottish law; there are some strange dictinctions on both sides for extreme motoring or against-the-person offences.
Could be for attempted murder which is still a common law crime up here. The definition I have given is that of Scots law. Road Traffic is a UK Act however and is pretty much identical both sides of the border.
Reporting and charging practices are materially different, and very variable across and within UK forces.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
We are told this is the Conservative voter's "wish list":
Small but effective government fiscal sense pro business let people get on with their own lives
I've no idea what "Small but Effective Government" means - how small, how effective, define effective, how do you measure whether it's effective or not? Central Government? Local Government?
"Fiscal sense" - in terms of reducing the deficit and debt, I'd agree but that won't be achieved by tax cuts but a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts so which taxes get raised, what gets cut? Are we looking to have the public finances in surplus or are we aiming to start paying back the debt? What about the increased defence spending everyone seems to want to deal with a Russian military threat which looks a shade exaggerated?
"Pro Business"? I'd prefer pro consumer and certainly much more stringent regulation on some of the companies owning our utilities and some of the larger service companies - pro small business, yes, reasonable to a point.
"Let people get on with their lives" - how are people not able to do that? What is it people can't do they'd like to do? Should we, like the Germans, abolish motorway speed limits so people can drive as fast as they like? Regulatory checks on gamblers? Certainly divisive but not perhaps the apocolyptic scenario some would suggest.
Too many things to answer in a post, I simply indicate the direction of travel we need. There are no overnight solutions where we are, it will take at least a decade to get back on our feet.
My ideas on reducing worse-than-useless process, and making government more productive and consumer friendly could be seen as meat for either party.
Yes. We could ask why HMG needs nearly 6 million employees at a time when the real economy needs a bigger workforce. Or why we need to load young people up with loads of debt at university when entering the workforce will serve us all better.
They all they want to make the "difficult decisions" but none of them do.
Nice to know that you don't think teachers in state schools, and health workers, are doing real jobs. Or the armed forces, or the police.
Don't forget all those dreadful diversity and inclusion officers whom the Chancellor has identified as being an important driver of the impending collapse in England's entire system of local government.
Getting rid of them all would've saved 0.02% of the budget of Birmingham City Council. Or 0.00% of that of stricken Thurrock. Transformative sums, I'm sure we'll all agree.
It's post like that that explain why we have a productivity problem. If you were in a factory and had reduced your costs by 0.02% you'd call it a good days work. You'd then go off and look for another 0.02% tomorrow,
Great business people - and I've known a few - are exactly like that: how do I make my business a tiny bit better today. They iterate, iterate, iterate. They try thing, change things, and are always striving - one tiny step at a time - to improve things.
Most managers are not like that.
Most people are not like that.
That, and Alanbrooke’s comment, are a load of baloney. If the Chancellor had come up with a ‘smart’ idea like that, every week for the rest of the year (he hasn’t), it would save the council 1% of its budget. When he’s purporting to explain to them how to cut 20% or so in that space of time.
Some real examples of great management in government would indeed be interesting. This isn’t one if them.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
That’s hideous. More sympathies!
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
GRRRR
Indeed. He was convicted of GBH which theoretically has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but yeah his actual sentence was six months and he'd have been out after two probably.
Sadly, I very much doubt I was his last victim either. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he seriously hurt others after that slap on the wrist too, who knows?
Since that happened to me at 22, I've never since had any faith in the judicial system. Never seen anything since to change my mind.
I suspect he pleaded guilty at first hearing, which gets you a third off your sentence although he still did get 6 months in custody
I should hope he pleaded guilty, he was arrested red-handed on the night it happened and there was CCTV.
Bouncers saw the punch that did it and threw him out of the club (!), but one of my friends flagged down a Police officer on the street who arrested the guy there and then. CCTV also showed what happened, he'd walked across the club and punched me without provocation or warning. He confessed in interrogation and gave the Police no explanation as to why he'd done it.
Six months is bugger all for GBH in my view. We've been talking tonight about nearly 5 years being a lenient sentence, but I wish my attacker had been sent away for nearly 5 years, would have had more of a sense of justice than a few months.
If you use a vehicle as a weapon, or cause death by dangerous driving, it should be an automatic life ban.
Indeed
Also he did this
“Mistry also collided head-on with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, causing serious injuries to the front passenger of the car. They were taken by ambulance to Milton Keynes university hospital.”
He nearly killed TWO people, and one of them was an attempted murder
He will be out within 2 years with that ludicrously lenient sentence. I hope the Crown appeals and he gets ten years
One for the legal chaps - why wasn’t he charged with attempted murder?
If it were a knife, for example... there is a bit of a blind spot in the courts/police/CPS when it comes to stuff like this.
All motorists who have a certain attitude to those tedious externalities?
It's not an externality if it's deliberate.
Attempted murder should be prosecuted as such.
Motorists who knowingly pollute the environment not an externality?
No, there's a difference between a secondary effect that you know about and a primary intention.
If the intention is to get from A to B and something else happens as a consequence that's an externality.
If the intention is to attempt to kill someone, then that's not.
It extends beyond deliberate actions though. In no other part of life would negligent or dangerous use of a heavy piece of machinery, that leads to serious injury or death, be treated so lightly by the courts.
It's not part of the "war on motorists", because car occupants are often the victims of such behaviour themselves. Particularly where I grew up.
The courts take things lightly all the damn time sadly.
I was hospitalised in an assault that shattered my eye socket, broke my nose and could have left me blind or worse and the perpetrator who had a string of past convictions as long as his arm got a six month sentence and would have been out after a couple of months if that.
My home was broken into, I caught the perp red handed, who was arrested (thanks to his getaway vehicle incidentally, I got the reg plate which was the evidence that convicted him). He had prior convictions again as long as his arm and confessed to 19 other burglaries at the hearing ... and was given a suspended sentence. No time served at all.
If you think the courts aren't lenient except when it comes to vehicles, you've just not been paying attention.
Jeez, mate, that’s awful
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
Yes, first was in 2004, second was in 2010, so not a result of modern court problems either.
Shameful. Especially the first one. Sympathies
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
The first one was when I was doing my MSc. The Student Union was closed as it was the summer (but as Masters students we were still at Uni through the summer) and we went into town to a club we'd never been too before.
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
That’s hideous. More sympathies!
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
GRRRR
Indeed. He was convicted of GBH which theoretically has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but yeah his actual sentence was six months and he'd have been out after two probably.
Sadly, I very much doubt I was his last victim either. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he seriously hurt others after that slap on the wrist too, who knows?
Since that happened to me at 22, I've never since had any faith in the judicial system. Never seen anything since to change my mind.
I suspect he pleaded guilty at first hearing, which gets you a third off your sentence although he still did get 6 months in custody
I should hope he pleaded guilty, he was arrested red-handed on the night it happened and there was CCTV.
Bouncers saw the punch that did it and threw him out of the club (!), but one of my friends flagged down a Police officer on the street who arrested the guy there and then. CCTV also showed what happened, he'd walked across the club and punched me without provocation or warning. He confessed in interrogation and gave the Police no explanation as to why he'd done it.
Six months is bugger all for GBH in my view. We've been talking tonight about nearly 5 years being a lenient sentence, but I wish my attacker had been sent away for nearly 5 years, would have had more of a sense of justice than a few months.
Rishi Sunak ordered the RAF to send a helicopter 210 miles from Northolt to his home in Yorkshire yesterday, so he could fly 145 miles to Coventry this morning, just to make a seven-minute speech. This is why he's in a spiral; it's the constant refusal to listen, learn or change.
I assume after Sunak no other PM will ever dare take a helicopter. No?
There's taking a helicopter (regularly) and taking the piss. This is the latter.
If he wants to take a helicopter he has enough personal cash to take it on Conservative Party rather than Government business. Alternatively he could dip into Hester's £15m.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Boy George, Danny Masterson, Boris Becker, Dani Alves, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Ken Lay, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
[snip]
Many of those offences occurred while disqualified, so what would a further disqualification achieve?
She should be incarcerated.
Sadly that list of crimes is only stunning if you don't have much of a connection with any crimes. Most crime is committed by the same repeat offenders again and again and our resolving door judicial system that gives them a slap on the wrist, if anything, if court doesn't stop them.
We should have fewer laws on stuff that is none of the state's business, but when it comes to repeated law-breaking on things that can or did cause injury, that should lead to lengthier prison sentences. Can't continue to repeatly offend if incarcerated.
Am I the only one who finds the headline on the front of the DE quite disturbing in tone ?
No. They seem to think it’s a vote winner. Has this been war-gamed and put through focus groups and shown as net vote winner? Despite the costs, the legal precedent set, the stretch of belief it actually “deters?”
One of the arguments for a May election was they wouldn’t have to go through with it, just use it in the manifesto.
Of the voters targeted, those who do get worked up by the crossings and not currently supporting the Tories, how many are supporters of the Rwanda policy? How many are, but a summer of crossings has more impact in not voting Tory? How many Tory moderate voters disgusted by going through with flights, do they lose?
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
A drop in the ocean.
Most people aren't rich and most rich people aren't convicted of serious crimes
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
Fair point. Although only four of those eight people committed their crimes in the UK. Consider the statement amended to "rich people in the UK only get punished when their crimes are too outre to ignore AND they outrage the other rich".
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
You are right he’ll be safe if one is triggered, but that knowledge doesn’t stop the random way voncs happen.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Boy George, Danny Masterson, Boris Becker, Dani Alves, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Ken Lay, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
While I'm here, does anybody know a shop that physically sells sliding wardrobe doors? B&Q and Homebase sell them online but not in-store and I need to touch them before I buy. Not sexually, obvs.
BTW, thanks to whomever recommended For All Mankind. Setting aside the improbability of Soviet Russia having a successful moon program as described, the period detail is excellent, as is the interweaving of genuine history and fiction. The pace is a bit leisurely, though.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
You are right he’ll be safe if one is triggered, but that knowledge doesn’t stop the random way voncs happen.
A second can't happen for a year if he wins the first, which takes him past the election date
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
You are right he’ll be safe if one is triggered, but that knowledge doesn’t stop the random way voncs happen.
Sunny might as well call a GE, does he really want this ludicrous psychodrama going on all summer? May 9, 16 and 23 remain available.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
Rich people don't get punished. That's what the whole "protects but do not bind" rule is about.
Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Max Clifford, Jeffrey Archer, Rolf Harris, Jonathan Aitken, Bernie Madoff, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein etc. All rich and all served prison time
Fair point. Although only four of those eight people committed their crimes in the UK. Consider the statement amended to "rich people in the UK only get punished when their crimes are too outre to ignore AND they outrage the other rich".
They get sentenced to jail time when they are convicted by a jury of a serious crime and most jury members are not rich
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
You are right he’ll be safe if one is triggered, but that knowledge doesn’t stop the random way voncs happen.
A second can't happen for a year if he wins the first, which takes him past the election date
Yes I know. But that knowledge still doesn’t stop the letters going in and the thing happening. It’s not just war gamed plots that trigger them, it’s more emotional than controlled is the truth you are not admitting.
Am I the only one who finds the headline on the front of the DE quite disturbing in tone ?
No. They seem to think it’s a vote winner. Has this been war-gamed and put through focus groups and shown as net vote winner? Despite the costs, the legal precedent set, the stretch of belief it actually “deters?”
One of the arguments for a May election was they wouldn’t have to go through with it, just use it in the manifesto.
Of the voters targeted, those who do get worked up by the crossings and not currently supporting the Tories, how many are supporters of the Rwanda policy? How many are, but a summer of crossings has more impact in not voting Tory? How many Tory moderate voters disgusted by going through with flights, do they lose?
It’s going to cost them votes and seats isn’t it?
Add to it, the front page you pointed to, A lot of prominent Tories with leadership ambition have staked their position on it - as in flights with many on board - wouldn’t work if still in ECHR. Maybe Rishi, and his support in media, are making out this will be easier from here than it will be.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
True. But doesn’t mean the vonc won’t happen. Did May and Boris Vonc happen in coordinated ways or triggered in random way? The May one opponents weren’t ready for.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
If Sunak wins a VONC, even by 1 vote, he can raise the threat of a snap GE at any time to stop another given he will go to the country in the autumn anyway
You are right he’ll be safe if one is triggered, but that knowledge doesn’t stop the random way voncs happen.
Sunny might as well call a GE, does he really want this ludicrous psychodrama going on all summer? May 9, 16 and 23 remain available.
Straight after local election poll drubbing? No. It was May 2nd or last quarter of year. Not in between. The bit after local election will be this same get Rish psychodrama x 10, and August is impossible as it’s holiday season. Remember an election date is not just 1 day, it’s the 5 week block of campaigning that can’t clash with a holiday season.
However, when challenged to rule out June or July Rishi refused to.
Why? Why not rule June and July out? Call a snap election straight after the BoE announces interest rate cut? You can’t guarantee the BoE will.
In the video, Kate looks like Kate, and well, which is great.
To me, she also looks faintly like she may have had some work done on the lower part of her face, because she looks thinner but at the same time quite tight in the jaw. One might have expected her to be a bit gaunt and older looking. Obviously it's a very blurry video.
At this distance, to me, it hasn't improved her face. There's a trendy 'look' for women to have thin, weak jaws and big cheeks like manga dolls or aliens at the moment, and I think it's unattractive - it ruins the balance of the face. She still looks pretty, if she's had it, clearly it has 'gone well' and she's pleased.
If you repeatedly ram someone with a car you are highly likely to kill them. Just as if you repeatedly smash someone in the head with a claw hammer
What’s the difference?
I you try to kill someone with a hammer and come mightily close and, as you do that, in your frenzy you also smash someone else in the head giving them critical injuries you should not get a jail sentence where you are out within 2 years
Truly bizarre
As strange to me as the sentence for attempted murder being shorter than one for actual murder; the accused did the same thing, with the same intent, why should our one play a part?
Someone throws an a axe at someone’s head with the intent off killing them but misses, another person does the same to someone else and hits, but the victim survives, a third person throws an axe at another person, hits and kills them… all three throwers are as evil as each other, but luck decides who goes to prison for longest
Because in fact sentencing is partly based on consequences. It is not rational, and, IMHO, it is increasing. While not rational, it is extremely understandable.
The high point of this is the fairly new offence of 'causing death by careless driving'. Careless driving is the stuff that all drivers have done, it (virtually) never involves malign intent about doing damage to people, and can involve misreading or failing to spot a sign in a strange place. You can get a long prison sentence for it.
Most careless drivers get suspended sentences and/or community orders even if death results, unless done under the influence of drink or drugs.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
One change I would like to see is far longer suspension periods, as a check on future behaviour and an incentive to improve rather than improve for a bit and return to old ways.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
Possibly, though Price has already breached a suspended sentence and got a community order 'She was given an 18-month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work, with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
Yep, but her extended list of crimes is stunning. Sorry for the long quote. This is just up to 2021. There have been several more since then.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
In the video, Kate looks like Kate, and well, which is great.
To me, she also looks faintly like she may have had some work done on the lower part of her face, because she looks thinner but at the same time quite tight in the jaw. One might have expected her to be a bit gaunt and older looking. Obviously it's a very blurry video.
At this distance, to me, it hasn't improved her face. There's a trendy 'look' for women to have thin, weak jaws and big cheeks like manga dolls or aliens at the moment, and I think it's unattractive - it ruins the balance of the face. She still looks pretty, if she's had it, clearly it has 'gone well' and she's pleased.
BigG told us his opinion re: procedure that Princess underwent, and it's wasn't cosmetic, but instead gynecological.
Extended recovery NOT uncommon, and would explain thinness, tightness, weakness better than your take methinks.
Would also explain her reticence, which again is pretty much the norm, at least in my limited experience. NOT something most women in that situation are comfortable talking about.
Problem for The Princess, and by extension The Firm, is that she is NOT a private person, OR even an ordinary garden-variety international mega-celebrity.
Straightforward from here: 1. Kate surfaces, files for divorce, denounces Royal Family. 2. Forms new political party committed to a republican Britain. "The Crown is over." 3. Anti-monarchy Labourites and normal Tories join. 4. Prime Minister Kate Middleton. 5. Goodbye monarchy.
In the video, Kate looks like Kate, and well, which is great.
To me, she also looks faintly like she may have had some work done on the lower part of her face, because she looks thinner but at the same time quite tight in the jaw. One might have expected her to be a bit gaunt and older looking. Obviously it's a very blurry video.
At this distance, to me, it hasn't improved her face. There's a trendy 'look' for women to have thin, weak jaws and big cheeks like manga dolls or aliens at the moment, and I think it's unattractive - it ruins the balance of the face. She still looks pretty, if she's had it, clearly it has 'gone well' and she's pleased.
I haven't seen the video, but if she has had some work done on her face I wouldn't assume it was cosmetic.
@PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Tory MPs claim 40 letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak have been submitted - just 13 short of the required 53 for a confidence vote
Senior Tory MP: "They will move against him this week"
Unless they have the 185 MPs to actually win a VONC rather pointless, just secures Sunak in place to lead the Tories in an autumn general election
Am I right that in your opinion Rishi Sunak would win a VOC? If so, how do you work that one out? He's a liability with a crap-awful personal rating and he would perform far worse in a GE than his replacement - and why I say that is because if we assume the community of Tory MPs has just a smidgeon of intelligence they will choose a replacement who will do better in the GE than Sunak would. That's what the VOC would be for. Ditching him will be good for the party, and then the replacement will call a GE ASAP to capitalise.
Very few voters are going to think "I would have voted Tory but I won't now, because this makes them look terrible...I mean they've had the most leaders in a 2.73 year interval than any major party has had since Bonar-Law, and if you go back before then you need to go all the way back to Walpole. Let's all remember Liz Truss and her 5 promises, and of course who could forget what Olaf Scholz has for breakfast." Sorry, at this point I nearly fell asleep. No normal person thinks like that.
Personally I think if there's a VOC he'll lose it.
Comments
Do you not get that in Saint Petersburg?
It’s strange because in so many other activities, particularly in sports coaching methods/gambling, process has become far more important than
result. Yet a man who stabs someone viciously enough that the victim would die without immediate medical help would get a lesser sentence if a surgeon happened to be passing by, despite his ill intent. Crazy really, I’d like to see the law changed
It's the Truman Show. Rishi Sunk going round and round in circles- is it a waterspout or a whirlpool?
https://youtu.be/MSqXhQjtHn0?t=20
Lump all your liquid assets on it.
Best of luck.
And as someone here has pointed out, the news agenda in the summer and autumn doesn't look good for the government.
Are those two different incidents?
I hate it when violent crime is leniently treated. Get these fuckers off the streets. Get all El Salvador on their sorry arses. I don’t care. Put them in mega prisons and let them rot, I do not care
The election this one will most resemble is 1979.
A tired, discredited government replaced with little enthusiasm by an unregarded leader who frankly couldn't be any worse.
I think we seem to like giving people long periods now, so unless it's a razor thin margin Labour will get 2 terms at least.
People understand that public services aren't working and need more money. So, why isn't Labour romping to an epochal victory on the back of promises to hike taxes to pay for loads of stuff?
It's because of the same old problem. Everyone wants the spending, but everyone also thinks that it's other people's responsibility to pay for it, not theirs.
As soon as you target one group of voters to cough up, they revolt because they are special flowers who should be singularly exempt from suffering. It's why the main achievement of the NI reduction was to piss off pensioners. They didn't get any benefit so felt hard done by.
The enthusiasm for paying for more stuff lasts precisely as long as people are asked to pay for more stuff. Then they flounce off in a huff to whoever is promising they won't have to pay for more stuff.
But I know who would. @Byronic
Are there any PBers who still thinks Rwanda flights happening will win back more voters than lose? It’s surely possible flights becoming real will costs Tories votes and seats in balance?
Something to do with being 64, and the Telegraph's new Youff Representative?
I don’t see how this guy escaped the charge
PLUS he critically injured someone else!
The correct strategy is a brutal first budget whereby absolutely everyone has to suffer. A majority of 100+ would allow that. Will they be brave enough? Doubt it.
Six hours later two police turned up. "Did you see who it was?" "... No. I had my back to the door." "Well, not much we can do then."
And they wandered off.
Aileen Cannon ordered both sides in Trump's stolen docs trial to write jury instructions AS IF Presdential Records Act says something other than it does.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1769850336158605746
Though with today's police it could have been even worse - that might have said 'Ah yes, that must have been Crazy Bob, from our community outreach team'.
You are being a prize prat, again.
The end of 1981 saw the SDP ahead and it was only by early 1982 and especially with the outbreak of the Falklands War that Thatcher's government really opened a clear poll lead that led the way to her 1983 landslide re election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election
We really do need a bit of Nayib Bukele
I was there.
Their main issue is they needed another reinvention, but the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle has severely undercut any attempt at such a reinvention, without being able to credibly try a 'stick with the plan' strategy.
The incoming governments of 2010, 1979, 1974 and 1970 were soon behind in the polls to the Opposition
The guy who did it was high as a kite and assaulted me unprovoked in the club. All caught on CCTV. I don't remember anything, just woke up in hospital. I was in hospital for a while and then blind for a while and unable to complete my dissertation until I'd healed.
Was terrifying as I woke up blind and was blind for a few days due to the amount of blood meaning I couldn't open my eyes. Was told not to sneeze for a fortnight or I would be blinded in that eye if I did as a sneeze would force the shattered eye socket into the eye.
There are quite often problems around driving offences and proving intent. Here intent to drive dangerously is very clear, but he could plead "just trying to force him off the road, to an attempted murder charge".
Were they doing an Offences Against the Person (I think that's the phrase) charge, it may have been some variety of manslaughter.
Happy to be corrected.
This intent point *could* be different in Scottish law; there are some strange dictinctions on both sides for extreme motoring or against-the-person offences.
Dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure however tend to get an immediate custodial sentence ie based on culpability
Most managers are not like that.
Most people are not like that.
I don't believe the electorate has that patience, and so I expect that Labour will either be turfed out of office fairly rapidly, or they will lurch in a different direction to avoid that fate.
And this evil mad fucker - with lots of previous - gets SIX MONTHS??
it is enraging. Why is it so hard for courts to treat violent crime with the seriousness it deserves? It is violent crime that frightens people, it is assault, rape, battery, murder, brutal robbery, attempted murder! - these are the things that make our streets unsafe and ruin society
GRRRR
Their flagship policy - arguably their only achievement of serious note - is extremely unpopular and even more so among those of working age. One which cannot be ditched or modified with the party as is without an unsurvivable split.
If Labour manage almost any incremental improvement in the state of the nation and avoid disasters, a 2028/29 campaign already writes itself - don't let the people who broke Britain have the chance to do it again, we're doing our best to clean up their mess.
It would take much more than Cameron's rebranding exercise to overcome that. It's going to stick with people.
The additional fear should be that as a party have become so toxic among those below pensionable age, those who are younger who do turn to the right in response to Labour failures, turn to new parties without the baggage, stuffiness, and blotted copybook- as has happened in Europe.
I'm also interested in the short ban. He will presumably be out of prison in about 3 years.
He was also disqualified from driving for four years and 10 months and will need to take an extended retest before getting his licence back.
Sadly, I very much doubt I was his last victim either. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he seriously hurt others after that slap on the wrist too, who knows?
Since that happened to me at 22, I've never since had any faith in the judicial system. Never seen anything since to change my mind.
Say "6 months in prison, suspended for 10 years." That is done in the ROI.
Katie Price is an example of a prominent serious repeat offender - eg multiple drink driving charges iirc - over 10 years who has never ended up in prison.
On a more general point, though, I really ought to try to get my head around the electoral politics of the 1920s and 30s. Too many people, too many issues, too many hatreds and no clear path through the morass.
Road Traffic is a UK Act however and is pretty much identical both sides of the border.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-61922878
If the Chancellor had come up with a ‘smart’ idea like that, every week for the rest of the year (he hasn’t), it would save the council 1% of its budget.
When he’s purporting to explain to them how to cut 20% or so in that space of time.
Some real examples of great management in government would indeed be interesting. This isn’t one if them.
Bouncers saw the punch that did it and threw him out of the club (!), but one of my friends flagged down a Police officer on the street who arrested the guy there and then. CCTV also showed what happened, he'd walked across the club and punched me without provocation or warning. He confessed in interrogation and gave the Police no explanation as to why he'd done it.
Six months is bugger all for GBH in my view. We've been talking tonight about nearly 5 years being a lenient sentence, but I wish my attacker had been sent away for nearly 5 years, would have had more of a sense of justice than a few months.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-grievous-bodily-harm-with-intent-to-do-grievous-bodily-harm-wounding-with-intent-to-do-gbh-2/
8 years away from the next world war... Hopefully not, but the way all the chess pieces are moving around the board I wouldn't rule it out at all.
If he wants to take a helicopter he has enough personal cash to take it on Conservative Party rather than Government business. Alternatively he could dip into Hester's £15m.
But each situation is unique. There’s more actual reason to remove Sunak than with May or Johnson - more threat of electoral defeat than inspired those previous vonc.
It’s a very complicated picture, where Labour don’t want to lose Sunak all hollowed out and dead duck, but times now too tight for Tory MPs to replace him. If this current situation - poll collapse and hated useless leader and threat of historic wipe out - still had 24 months to an election, they would easily find the 185 MPs in a vonc wouldn’t they? 2 swap outs already and only 6 months left is all what’s saving Sunak from ousted, though a random Vonc still possible anytime.
David Herdson made astute observation below: the ruling out of May election suddenly shifted the mood, without that distraction, minds eye started to see things with more clarity.
In this case I suggest it is about the safety of the public, and a lifetime ban would have been proportionate long ago.
Katie has her first escape in 2003 when she was allegedly caught doing 70mph in a 40mph zone.
However, she evaded punishment on a technicality.
In 2008 however, another offence was committed and this time she did face the punishment of the law.
She was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone and received three penalty points on her license and a £200 fine.
2010 was another controversial year for Price as firstly she was convicted of speeding after magistrates rejected the claim that she was being hounded by paparazzi - she received four penalty points and a £250 fine.
Then in September of that year, she was convicted for failing to be in proper control of her vehicle after her £300,000 pink horse box veered into another lane on February 19, for which she received a £1,000 fine and three penalty points.
Then in December 2010, she was banned from driving for six-months after being caught speeding in Pyecombe the previous year.
She was given a £1000 fine and three points on her license, taking her over the 12-point limit bringing about the automatic six month ban.
In 2012, Katie was told she could not drive for 12 months due to failing to respond to two speeding tickets, once again taking her up to 12 points on her license.
Jump forward three years to 2015 and Price was convicted for failing to stop at a red light whilst driving her Bentley - she was given three points on her license and a £700 along with court costs.
In February 2018, Katie was handed another ban - this time for six months, and a £750 fine, for doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone in West Sussex in 2017.
Then in the summer of 2018 Price handed herself into police for driving whilst disqualified.
In August 2018 Price was found asleep in the backseat of her pink 4x4 after it had crashed into another car before careering into a hedge.
She was arrested and breath tested and spent a night at Plumstead police station before being released under investigation.
Charges of drink driving were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
In October 2019 however, she was convicted of failing to provide details of the driver of the vehicle, and was handed a two-year driving ban later reduced to 18 months.
This leads us to her latest offence for which she deemed "extremely lucky" to have avoided a prison sentence.
After flipping her Range Rover in her single-vehicle crash, Price told the court, "I was just going to a friends but I know I shouldn’t be driving."
https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/news/sussex-news/katie-price-driving-offences-prison-6382095
She should be incarcerated.
Sadly that list of crimes is only stunning if you don't have much of a connection with any crimes. Most crime is committed by the same repeat offenders again and again and our resolving door judicial system that gives them a slap on the wrist, if anything, if court doesn't stop them.
We should have fewer laws on stuff that is none of the state's business, but when it comes to repeated law-breaking on things that can or did cause injury, that should lead to lengthier prison sentences. Can't continue to repeatly offend if incarcerated.
One of the arguments for a May election was they wouldn’t have to go through with it, just use it in the manifesto.
Of the voters targeted, those who do get worked up by the crossings and not currently supporting the Tories, how many are supporters of the Rwanda policy? How many are, but a summer of crossings has more impact in not voting Tory? How many Tory moderate voters disgusted by going through with flights, do they lose?
It’s going to cost them votes and seats isn’t it?
Setting aside the improbability of Soviet Russia having a successful moon program as described, the period detail is excellent, as is the interweaving of genuine history and fiction.
The pace is a bit leisurely, though.
(I dropped Chicken Nugget; disappointing.)
However, when challenged to rule out June or July Rishi refused to.
Why? Why not rule June and July out? Call a snap election straight after the BoE announces interest rate cut? You can’t guarantee the BoE will.
To me, she also looks faintly like she may have had some work done on the lower part of her face, because she looks thinner but at the same time quite tight in the jaw. One might have expected her to be a bit gaunt and older looking. Obviously it's a very blurry video.
At this distance, to me, it hasn't improved her face. There's a trendy 'look' for women to have thin, weak jaws and big cheeks like manga dolls or aliens at the moment, and I think it's unattractive - it ruins the balance of the face. She still looks pretty, if she's had it, clearly it has 'gone well' and she's pleased.
Don't you think that being Katie Price is punishment enough?
Extended recovery NOT uncommon, and would explain thinness, tightness, weakness better than your take methinks.
Would also explain her reticence, which again is pretty much the norm, at least in my limited experience. NOT something most women in that situation are comfortable talking about.
Problem for The Princess, and by extension The Firm, is that she is NOT a private person, OR even an ordinary garden-variety international mega-celebrity.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1769708929469100421
Straightforward from here:
1. Kate surfaces, files for divorce, denounces Royal Family.
2. Forms new political party committed to a republican Britain. "The Crown is over."
3. Anti-monarchy Labourites and normal Tories join.
4. Prime Minister Kate Middleton.
5. Goodbye monarchy.
Very few voters are going to think "I would have voted Tory but I won't now, because this makes them look terrible...I mean they've had the most leaders in a 2.73 year interval than any major party has had since Bonar-Law, and if you go back before then you need to go all the way back to Walpole. Let's all remember Liz Truss and her 5 promises, and of course who could forget what Olaf Scholz has for breakfast." Sorry, at this point I nearly fell asleep. No normal person thinks like that.
Personally I think if there's a VOC he'll lose it.
If it happens we'll find out who's right.
No air con
Manafort in Talks to Return for the Republican National Convention
Paul Manafort, who served as a top adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, was pardoned by Mr. Trump after being convicted of tax and bank fraud.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/manafort-rnc-trump.html?smid=tw-share