Tories on course for a worse result at general election than John Major's defeat in 1997, new Yougov MRP poll finds
Labour poised to take 403 seats, Tories reduced to 155. Starmer expected to get 154 majority
The result is *worse* for the Tories than the last MRP Yougov conducted in January
11 Cabinet ministers face losing their seats:
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies
Labour 403 Con 155 LD 49 SNP 19 Plaid 4 Greens 1
Lab 41% Con 24% Lib Dems 12% Greens 7% Reform 12% SNP 3% Others 1%
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies - your boys took a helllll of a beating!
You could use most of the original list: Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Maggie Thatcher...
The YouGov does indeed look broadly in line with the sort of result one might expect. I think it's rather tight on the Tories in London where they only hold 4 seats and perhaps a bit generous on some other holds but it's broadly in the range I'd expect. Labour get a 1997 result but with limited enthusiasm. Will Reform turn out it's 12%?? That's a big question here
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
But these families don't *own* their farms or have a chance of buying them, because the big landowners cling to them. And we were talking about big landonwers, not the individual farming families, till you started conflating them.
Most landowners are farmers too and individual farming families couldn't afford a big inheritance bill either even if they owned their farms rather than being tenant farmers
So it's not an argument relevant to big landowners, then. Which is the point.
How do you think other people feel about having to pay IHT when others don't? You're always complaining about it.
It is an argument relevant to farmers, large or small.
Currently most people don't pay IHT unless their parents have an estate over £1 million and most people also need a guaranteed supply of food, which comes from ensuring we have enough British farmers producing food
You're an activist for a party which couldn't give a toss for food security and has done a great deal to damage UK farming and fishing. Right down to letting anything unchecked into the UK. Rremember how foot and mouth outbreaks began.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately . The IDF are out of control . Enough talking and repeated appeals to the Israeli government to increase aid . They continually promise more and then do fxck all .
Tories on course for a worse result at general election than John Major's defeat in 1997, new Yougov MRP poll finds
Labour poised to take 403 seats, Tories reduced to 155. Starmer expected to get 154 majority
The result is *worse* for the Tories than the last MRP Yougov conducted in January
11 Cabinet ministers face losing their seats:
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies
Labour 403 Con 155 LD 49 SNP 19 Plaid 4 Greens 1
Lab 41% Con 24% Lib Dems 12% Greens 7% Reform 12% SNP 3% Others 1%
If anything, this feels quite optimistic for the Tories - probably because (1) there's no allowance for changes in tactical voting on local dynamics, and (2) YouGov have applied an " ‘unwinding’ algorithm" against proportional swing.
The true picture is probably worse. Anti-Con tactical voting will happen to a much greater degree than in 2019, and proportional swing does happen (and to an extent, has to happen) when there are very large swings nationally.
A couple of interesting three way battles developing there - Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Moray and Strathspey, Perthshire and the Dumfriesshire and Dumfries and Galloway seats all three way tussles
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
OK, I'll bite at that. What planes do they have that come from us? Do they have Hawks? We've haven't sold them tanks for several decades (we reneged on a deal to sell them Chieftains/Centurions in the 70/80s). They are self-reliant for tanks and rifles. It's possible we sell them ammunition from Royal Ordinance, but there's hardly a world-wide shortage of that.
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
The YouGov does indeed look broadly in line with the sort of result one might expect. I think it's rather tight on the Tories in London where they only hold 4 seats and perhaps a bit generous on some other holds but it's broadly in the range I'd expect. Labour get a 1997 result but with limited enthusiasm. Will Reform turn out it's 12%?? That's a big question here
Notable that with LLG:RefCon of 60:36 this “only” gives a Labour majority of 150.
In 1997 the LLG score was a bit higher and Con + Referendum was a bit lower than RefCon now, but of course Con scored far better than current polling.
But, Green will probably be lower than 7% at the election and Labour may pick up a percent or so from some of those currently saying Reform.
Summary The transcript from YouTube was fed into the free online summarizer AHREFS and after two iterations and some editing the output is here:
The leftwing in France has a long history dating back to the French Revolution, but current discussions focus more on the center and right, particularly Macron and Le Pen. The Socialist Party was once dominant but declined after Hollande's presidency. Melenchon's rise in 2017 shifted the left's landscape, leading to the formation of the NUPES alliance of the left. However, internal divisions within NUPES re-emerged, causing disunity. The alliance faced challenges on various issues, leading to the suspension of the Socialist Party's participation. Despite efforts to unite, divisions persisted, with parties running separately in the 2024 European Parliament election. The French left must find common ground and a unifying figure to navigate the evolving political landscape. The 2027 presidential election presents an opportunity for the left to regroup and redefine its strategy, but internal divisions may hinder a united front. The question of leadership extends beyond the left, as Macron's allies and the National Rally also strategize for the future. Unity and strategic planning are crucial for electoral success and shaping France's political landscape.
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
I focus my ire specifically on Bibi. There is not an insult or profanity too extreme to describe that ****.
Wasn't Netanyahu under the knife while the aid workers were being killed? Might an adventurous deputy have taken advantage of his absence? (What the Middle East needs is more conspiracy theories.)
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
I doubt Netanyahu gave the direct order to blow away the aid workers, however the command and control of the IDF remains in his gift.
Netanyahu was under general anaesthesia for abdominal surgery. It is possible a rogue commander or politician took advantage of ambiguity in the chain of command.
Netanyahu is nasty, dangerous and a menace to world peace. He’s also a racist, a crook and a charlatan who richly deserves locking up.
But - one thing he isn’t is stupid. He would not have wanted an aid convoy with large signs saying THIS IS AN AID CONVOY on its roofs travelling a corridor agreed by the IDF blown up by Israeli jets. Not a good look in world affairs.
Blowing up hospitals Hamas are using as a base is not great but is at least understandable. This was inexcusable.
I suspect the person who was dumb enough to think that a smart move will regret it. But that won’t bring the dead back.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
But also factor in the British voter’s fear of large majorities…
I thought it was minorities they didn't like?
Yes, but they really don't like a minority that's a large majority, because that makes the majority into a minority, which they don't like.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
Of the 155 Tory seats, 61 have Tory majorities of under 5% with them mainly in the mid-thirties.
Aldershot is held on a 31/30 Con/Lab projection. Aylesbury very similar.
If there is tactical voting in those seats, the Tories are in real trouble - albeit the issues we've discussed may make the waters rather murky for that.
Bicester and Woodstock a nominal hold on 31%, with Lib Dems second on 26% and Labour in a close third on 24% Brecon held with a Con share of only 29% (!); if the Lib Dem on 26% can get a smidge of tactical votes, that's a goner. Bridgwater with only 27%, Labour breathing down their necks on 26% with Lib Dems on 23% right on their heels. Chelmsford a three way knife-fight with Cons holding on 30%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 26% Chichester held on 32%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 21% Congleton held on 36% with Labour on 35%, but only 8% LD vote to try to squeeze (but also 8% Green vote)
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
Were there repercussions to the (false) accuser in your case?
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
OK, I'll bite at that. What planes do they have that come from us? Do they have Hawks? We've haven't sold them tanks for several decades (we reneged on a deal to sell them Chieftains/Centurions in the 70/80s). They are self-reliant for tanks and rifles. It's possible we sell them ammunition from Royal Ordinance, but there's hardly a world-wide shortage of that.
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
BAe Systems has bought up various bits and bobs of US defence contractors over the years, so it likely makes a variety of things, in the US, that you think of as US weapons, but they're sold by a company listed on the LSE, so I guess they count as British arms sales.
Oh I see. That makes sense: defacto US, dejure UK. Thank you.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
Were there repercussions to the (false) accuser in your case?
Nope, I was named in the local newspaper she was not
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
OK, I'll bite at that. What planes do they have that come from us? Do they have Hawks? We've haven't sold them tanks for several decades (we reneged on a deal to sell them Chieftains/Centurions in the 70/80s). They are self-reliant for tanks and rifles. It's possible we sell them ammunition from Royal Ordinance, but there's hardly a world-wide shortage of that.
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
I find myself in the odd position of defending the present Govt: the sales are small, technological in nature (radars?) and in some cases (F35) not actually specifically to Israel. If we stopped they wouldn't miss a beat.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I agree with the last sentence, but the rest is weapons-grade nonsense - certainly true that, historically, the women's testimony would've been downgraded relative to the man's, but the hurdle needed to be overcome for a rape conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". Even if the woman is deemed ten times as reliable as the man, if there's no physical evidence to support her claim, the jury still has to assume a 9% chance the man is telling the truth, and hence find him not guilty.
If you want to increase rape convictions, the only vaguely realistic options are: - change the law on consent to require positive (and documented) affirmation prior to any sexual activity - bring in a new civil charge called something like "sexual misconduct" which has a lower standard of proof and hence lower penalties
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I think that is a mis description. The test for the Jury is not who do they believe but have the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Juries are instructed that if they think the accused probably did it they have to acquit because that is not good enough.
The Crown's position is that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, that is that it has to come from the evidence and be inconsistent with the evidence that they have heard. The defence focus on a reasonable doubt being something that would make you pause or hesitate in an important matter in your own affairs: basically are you sure? The Judge's directions, at least in Scotland, somewhat unhelpfully contain both!
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
I focus my ire specifically on Bibi. There is not an insult or profanity too extreme to describe that ****.
Wasn't Netanyahu under the knife while the aid workers were being killed? Might an adventurous deputy have taken advantage of his absence? (What the Middle East needs is more conspiracy theories.)
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
I doubt Netanyahu gave the direct order to blow away the aid workers, however the command and control of the IDF remains in his gift.
Netanyahu was under general anaesthesia for abdominal surgery. It is possible a rogue commander or politician took advantage of ambiguity in the chain of command.
Netanyahu is nasty, dangerous and a menace to world peace. He’s also a racist, a crook and a charlatan who richly deserves locking up.
But - one thing he isn’t is stupid. He would not have wanted an aid convoy with large signs saying THIS IS AN AID CONVOY on its roofs travelling a corridor agreed by the IDF blown up by Israeli jets. Not a good look in world affairs.
Blowing up hospitals Hamas are using as a base is not great but is at least understandable. This was inexcusable.
I suspect the person who was dumb enough to think that a smart move will regret it. But that won’t bring the dead back.
How many hostages have rescued since March 1st?
Although if we're comparing barbarity the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th are hard to beat.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
Another point, wasn't the first time she had been raped I was the third apparently, first two went to trial. First allegation got a not guilty verdict second case went to prison for 4 years. In light of my ordeal I wonder how safe that was.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I think that is a mis description. The test for the Jury is not who do they believe but have the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Juries are instructed that if they think the accused probably did it they have to acquit because that is not good enough.
The Crown's position is that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, that is that it has to come from the evidence and be inconsistent with the evidence that they have heard. The defence focus on a reasonable doubt being something that would make you pause or hesitate in an important matter in your own affairs: basically are you sure? The Judge's directions, at least in Scotland, somewhat unhelpfully contain both!
Sorry I think a lot of jury members will vote guilty on probably did it....depends on the jury you get
That is almost exactly what I have been forecasting, except I had Labour on 30 and the Lib Dems down to 3. So it is obviously complete rubbish.
Looks plausible. Has the Tories losing just one of their Scottish seats- Andrew Bowie in Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine. As it happens I think he'll hold - his patch is full of oil and gas workers and is socially conservative (includes Royal Deeside) - it's not a naturally Humza sorta-place.
Problem for SNP is that once they dip below, say, 35% overall vote share, they hit a tipping point at which they haemorrhage seats to Labour in the Central Belt, while the Tories and LibDems elsewhere in the rural hinterlands hang on or even gain seats. FPTP goes from "win-win"to "lose-lose".
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
The police have also fought very hard to keep records - fingerprints and DNA for example - from people who have been *proven* innocent.
Of the 155 Tory seats, 61 have Tory majorities of under 5% with them mainly in the mid-thirties.
Aldershot is held on a 31/30 Con/Lab projection. Aylesbury very similar.
If there is tactical voting in those seats, the Tories are in real trouble - albeit the issues we've discussed may make the waters rather murky for that.
Bicester and Woodstock a nominal hold on 31%, with Lib Dems second on 26% and Labour in a close third on 24% Brecon held with a Con share of only 29% (!); if the Lib Dem on 26% can get a smidge of tactical votes, that's a goner. Bridgwater with only 27%, Labour breathing down their necks on 26% with Lib Dems on 23% right on their heels. Chelmsford a three way knife-fight with Cons holding on 30%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 26% Chichester held on 32%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 21% Congleton held on 36% with Labour on 35%, but only 8% LD vote to try to squeeze (but also 8% Green vote)
... and I'm only up to the 'C's
Yes, and to be fair this poll (like the previous YouGov) shows LibDems ahead in our seat. It would be interesting to see the differences in MRP methodology between the different institutes, but I assume they are all commercially confidential. At a guess, they vary in the extent that they differentiate demographic groups - one may look at "professionals", another may split them up into "academic professionals" and "managers", and a particular seat may have the same number of the rougher grouping but different numbers with the finer distinctions.
In addition, I suspect the real figures for the country are something like Con 25 Lab 38 LD 7 Reform 10 "nebulous anti-Con" 15, others 5.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
Slight correction...they include cautions which many accept even if not guilty as its easier that gambling on a court and usually cautions are "we dont have the evidence so we will ask you to take a caution"
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Boston & Skegness, a third place behind Con 36, Lab 28, with Reform on 25 Ashfield has 30p Lee come second to Labour (Lab 35, Reform 23, Con 18, with Jason Z on only 8% - I wonder if local issues might cause unpredictability there) Clacton and Castle Point have strong third places behind Con 38, Lab 28, Ref 22 in one and Con 36, Lab 28, Ref 22 in the other)
South Basildon & East Thurrock and Great Yarmouth also have Reform at 20%+ and within 15% of taking the seat, but past that, you start to fall away. Sittingbourne & Sheppey and Exmouth & Exeter East are the only other seats with Reform within 15% of the leader, and in both they have (barely) sub-20% shares projected.
If looking for an opportunity for a potential Reform seat-winning bet, I'd suggest: 1 - Whichever Farage chooses, IF he chooses to stand 2 - Ashfield 3 - Another of those, if you have a lot of local information and it's pointing towards them
Swingback theory predicts a U shaped graph. (Maggie's U between 1983 and 1987 is a thing of beauty.) Rishi, on the other hand, has resolutely failed to swing.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
But also factor in the British voter’s fear of large majorities…
I thought it was minorities they didn't like?
To a rough approximation, British voters don't like anyone.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
The police have also fought very hard to keep records - fingerprints and DNA for example - from people who have been *proven* innocent.
Another reason why no one trusts the police any longer, I would happily give dna or fingerprints in an investigation if I had faith the police would delete them after. What I don't want is to be later being investigated because a close relative commits a crime and my dna provides points of matching
Swingback theory predicts a U shaped graph. (Maggie's U between 1983 and 1987 is a thing of beauty.) Rishi, on the other hand, has resolutely failed to swing.
So what's it likely to do?
That question at least has some sense in it, unlike the bookie guff header which might as well say four is a lucky number.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I think that is a mis description. The test for the Jury is not who do they believe but have the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Juries are instructed that if they think the accused probably did it they have to acquit because that is not good enough.
The Crown's position is that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, that is that it has to come from the evidence and be inconsistent with the evidence that they have heard. The defence focus on a reasonable doubt being something that would make you pause or hesitate in an important matter in your own affairs: basically are you sure? The Judge's directions, at least in Scotland, somewhat unhelpfully contain both!
Sorry I think a lot of jury members will vote guilty on probably did it....depends on the jury you get
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
The anc were a terrorist organisation they planted bombs etc. At the same apartheid was wrong it is perfectly possible to believe both
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
Slight correction...they include cautions which many accept even if not guilty as its easier that gambling on a court and usually cautions are "we dont have the evidence so we will ask you to take a caution"
If you accept a caution, you are admitting guilt. This should be clearly explained to people.
Swingback theory predicts a U shaped graph. (Maggie's U between 1983 and 1987 is a thing of beauty.) Rishi, on the other hand, has resolutely failed to swing.
Boston & Skegness, a third place behind Con 36, Lab 28, with Reform on 25 Ashfield has 30p Lee come second to Labour (Lab 35, Reform 23, Con 18, with Jason Z on only 8% - I wonder if local issues might cause unpredictability there) Clacton and Castle Point have strong third places behind Con 38, Lab 28, Ref 22 in one and Con 36, Lab 28, Ref 22 in the other)
South Basildon & East Thurrock and Great Yarmouth also have Reform at 20%+ and within 15% of taking the seat, but past that, you start to fall away. Sittingbourne & Sheppey and Exmouth & Exeter East are the only other seats with Reform within 15% of the leader, and in both they have (barely) sub-20% shares projected.
If looking for an opportunity for a potential Reform seat-winning bet, I'd suggest: 1 - Whichever Farage chooses, IF he chooses to stand 2 - Ashfield 3 - Another of those, if you have a lot of local information and it's pointing towards them
But, as always, DYOR.
MRP can clearly not take into account local issues, like Anderson being a sitting Reform MP having defected or the whole Ashfield Independents thing.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
Thatcher and the Tories called the ANC "terrorists".
They supported instead the ANC's enemy - the fascist South African regime which they allowed to operate its London office in a huge building on Trafalgar Square.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
I'm old enough to remember when rather a lot of the party disagreed vehemently. They wanted him on the gallows.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.
And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”
and
Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
Were there repercussions to the (false) accuser in your case?
Nope, I was named in the local newspaper she was not
Most unfair on you. Making a knowingly false allegation of rape is a crime - and proof that the accused was overseas at the time would seem to point in that direction.
The nature of rape cases is the vast majority are cases of date rape. You have two people one says it was consensual, one says not. No witnesses. How do you prosecute it?
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
But also factor in the British voter’s fear of large majorities…
I disagree with this claim. Both Thatcher and Blair won Majorities of over 100 and the UK regularly get governments with a working majority much larger than their vote share. Most voters are happy with a system that does this. If you mean British voters have a fear of a "Dictator sized majority" like in Russia or Iran, then I accept that, but I don't think we should really be comparing elections in Britain to Uganda.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
Thatcher and the Tories called the ANC "terrorists".
They supported instead the ANC's enemy - the fascist South African regime which they allowed to operate its London office in a huge building on Trafalgar Square.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
Not 100% sure that someone's professional and perhaps personal life irrevocably damaged counts as "going nowhere".
Precisely the punishment even if falsely accused is devastating, I lost friends over it because no smoke without fire apparently. The allegation still appears on enhanced dbs checks even though it was dropped due to the fact I could prove I couldn't have done it
That's outrageous. DBS records should contain only facts not tittle tattle.
Enhanced DBS is allowed to include allegations at police discretion which is why the scottish hate crime law is iniquitous
The police have also fought very hard to keep records - fingerprints and DNA for example - from people who have been *proven* innocent.
Another reason why no one trusts the police any longer, I would happily give dna or fingerprints in an investigation if I had faith the police would delete them after. What I don't want is to be later being investigated because a close relative commits a crime and my dna provides points of matching
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
Were there repercussions to the (false) accuser in your case?
Nope, I was named in the local newspaper she was not
Most unfair on you. Making a knowingly false allegation of rape is a crime - and proof that the accused was overseas at the time would seem to point in that direction.
Rape is a heinous crime and not one I would ever commit.
There are people raped who never get justice....that is wrong. There are people accused of rape who didnt do it but get convicted or tried in the court of local opinion that is equally wrong.
While I think there are far more of the former than the latter both are wrong but I dont see a way to fix it when most rapes are by people you know, most false accusations likewise and both have no witnesses so comes down mostly to one saying this happened and the other saying it didnt
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
The other leg's got bells on. As they say!
Indeed. "Every commander makes his own rules" <- what a load of crap. You couldn't run the Swiss Guard like that.
That's not quite what Robert Fisk meant when he called the Israeli army an "indisciplined rabble".
Meanwhile AFAIAA no major media organ in the world is asking what the hold-up is with the floating pier the US military were supposed to be about to wow everyone with.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
And if I had been at home when I was accused, she says it happened I say it didnt. In this case certainly there was no sex between us.....if I couldnt prove I was on a different continent when she claimed I did it how would that have gone?
Any cursory level of knowledge of cases that make it to court would tell you that such a case goes nowhere. Even where both parties accept that sex did take place a conviction is hard to achieve because a woman's testimony is considered inherently untrustworthy in these cases by our culture.
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I think that is a mis description. The test for the Jury is not who do they believe but have the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Juries are instructed that if they think the accused probably did it they have to acquit because that is not good enough.
The Crown's position is that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, that is that it has to come from the evidence and be inconsistent with the evidence that they have heard. The defence focus on a reasonable doubt being something that would make you pause or hesitate in an important matter in your own affairs: basically are you sure? The Judge's directions, at least in Scotland, somewhat unhelpfully contain both!
What is you view of the intention to remove the Not Proven verdict?
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.
And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”
and
Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.
You know what Richard Tomlinson and Stephen Dorril said about Nelson Mandela.
No sooner did Mandela take office than he put his signature to one of the biggest weapons deals of all time.
Mandela was the heir to a tribal chieftaincy and his daughter married royalty, so the Mandelas were somewhat atypical victims of white supremacy in South Africa. But I always had great respect for his refusal to renounce violence against the said supremacy.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
Were there repercussions to the (false) accuser in your case?
Nope, I was named in the local newspaper she was not
Most unfair on you. Making a knowingly false allegation of rape is a crime - and proof that the accused was overseas at the time would seem to point in that direction.
Rape is a heinous crime and not one I would ever commit.
There are people raped who never get justice....that is wrong. There are people accused of rape who didnt do it but get convicted or tried in the court of local opinion that is equally wrong.
While I think there are far more of the former than the latter both are wrong but I dont see a way to fix it when most rapes are by people you know, most false accusations likewise and both have no witnesses so comes down mostly to one saying this happened and the other saying it didnt
Yep. Rape is unique amongst serious crimes of violence in that the vast majority of perpetrators get away with it - to a large extent because of the difficulty in proving lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
It's the individual, exclusive experience 1 on 1 to behind the scenes areas.
The afternoon tea is an extra £50 not inclusive, btw, afaics. I guess the price is because that is what tourists will pay.
I think one thing they don't have is a Queen Mother branded Gin.
Maintenance costs are around £4m a year, so I guess the reasons are around meeting that, and the economics probably set up simlarly to say Chatsworth.
It's tricky to argue against without invoking political justifications imo.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Isn’t fence-sitting potentially a banning offence?
Pineapple on pizza is fine. Diehard is a Christmas movie. Cheese is wonderful. TSE is a lawyer.
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
yet an ex minister said today it was bits and bobs and only 40 million
Comments
Con 27, Lab 23, LD 35.
What was I saying about differences between companies?
The true picture is probably worse. Anti-Con tactical voting will happen to a much greater degree than in 2019, and proportional swing does happen (and to an extent, has to happen) when there are very large swings nationally.
In 1997 the LLG score was a bit higher and Con + Referendum was a bit lower than RefCon now, but of course Con scored far better than current polling.
But, Green will probably be lower than 7% at the election and Labour may pick up a percent or so from some of those currently saying Reform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hDOaLbPAnk
Summary
The transcript from YouTube was fed into the free online summarizer AHREFS and after two iterations and some editing the output is here:
The leftwing in France has a long history dating back to the French Revolution, but current discussions focus more on the center and right, particularly Macron and Le Pen. The Socialist Party was once dominant but declined after Hollande's presidency. Melenchon's rise in 2017 shifted the left's landscape, leading to the formation of the NUPES alliance of the left. However, internal divisions within NUPES re-emerged, causing disunity. The alliance faced challenges on various issues, leading to the suspension of the Socialist Party's participation. Despite efforts to unite, divisions persisted, with parties running separately in the 2024 European Parliament election. The French left must find common ground and a unifying figure to navigate the evolving political landscape. The 2027 presidential election presents an opportunity for the left to regroup and redefine its strategy, but internal divisions may hinder a united front. The question of leadership extends beyond the left, as Macron's allies and the National Rally also strategize for the future. Unity and strategic planning are crucial for electoral success and shaping France's political landscape.
But - one thing he isn’t is stupid. He would not have wanted an aid convoy with large signs saying THIS IS AN AID CONVOY on its roofs travelling a corridor agreed by the IDF blown up by Israeli jets. Not a good look in world affairs.
Blowing up hospitals Hamas are using as a base is not great but is at least understandable. This was inexcusable.
I suspect the person who was dumb enough to think that a smart move will regret it. But that won’t bring the dead back.
Perfectly simple really
(ducks)
Aldershot is held on a 31/30 Con/Lab projection. Aylesbury very similar.
If there is tactical voting in those seats, the Tories are in real trouble - albeit the issues we've discussed may make the waters rather murky for that.
Bicester and Woodstock a nominal hold on 31%, with Lib Dems second on 26% and Labour in a close third on 24%
Brecon held with a Con share of only 29% (!); if the Lib Dem on 26% can get a smidge of tactical votes, that's a goner.
Bridgwater with only 27%, Labour breathing down their necks on 26% with Lib Dems on 23% right on their heels.
Chelmsford a three way knife-fight with Cons holding on 30%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 26%
Chichester held on 32%, with Lib Dems on 28% and Labour on 21%
Congleton held on 36% with Labour on 35%, but only 8% LD vote to try to squeeze (but also 8% Green vote)
... and I'm only up to the 'C's
Like I said, these discussions are incredibly depressing.
I find myself in the odd position of defending the present Govt: the sales are small, technological in nature (radars?) and in some cases (F35) not actually specifically to Israel. If we stopped they wouldn't miss a beat.
If you want to increase rape convictions, the only vaguely realistic options are:
- change the law on consent to require positive (and documented) affirmation prior to any sexual activity
- bring in a new civil charge called something like "sexual misconduct" which has a lower standard of proof and hence lower penalties
The Crown's position is that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, that is that it has to come from the evidence and be inconsistent with the evidence that they have heard. The defence focus on a reasonable doubt being something that would make you pause or hesitate in an important matter in your own affairs: basically are you sure? The Judge's directions, at least in Scotland, somewhat unhelpfully contain both!
Although if we're comparing barbarity the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th are hard to beat.
Problem for SNP is that once they dip below, say, 35% overall vote share, they hit a tipping point at which they haemorrhage seats to Labour in the Central Belt, while the Tories and LibDems elsewhere in the rural hinterlands hang on or even gain seats. FPTP goes from "win-win"to "lose-lose".
In addition, I suspect the real figures for the country are something like Con 25 Lab 38 LD 7 Reform 10 "nebulous anti-Con" 15, others 5.
Boston & Skegness, a third place behind Con 36, Lab 28, with Reform on 25
Ashfield has 30p Lee come second to Labour (Lab 35, Reform 23, Con 18, with Jason Z on only 8% - I wonder if local issues might cause unpredictability there)
Clacton and Castle Point have strong third places behind Con 38, Lab 28, Ref 22 in one and Con 36, Lab 28, Ref 22 in the other)
South Basildon & East Thurrock and Great Yarmouth also have Reform at 20%+ and within 15% of taking the seat, but past that, you start to fall away.
Sittingbourne & Sheppey and Exmouth & Exeter East are the only other seats with Reform within 15% of the leader, and in both they have (barely) sub-20% shares projected.
If looking for an opportunity for a potential Reform seat-winning bet, I'd suggest:
1 - Whichever Farage chooses, IF he chooses to stand
2 - Ashfield
3 - Another of those, if you have a lot of local information and it's pointing towards them
But, as always, DYOR.
https://willjennings.substack.com/p/this-time-is-different
Swingback theory predicts a U shaped graph. (Maggie's U between 1983 and 1987 is a thing of beauty.) Rishi, on the other hand, has resolutely failed to swing.
That question at least has some sense in it, unlike the bookie guff header which might as well say four is a lucky number.
https://thecommonwealth.org/news/archive-sanctions-agreed-against-apartheid-era-south-africa
https://youtu.be/eoq4JghmKrs?si=IUvMZm075gjGny5E&t=18
They supported instead the ANC's enemy - the fascist South African regime which they allowed to operate its London office in a huge building on Trafalgar Square.
But see this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela
And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”
and
Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
There are people raped who never get justice....that is wrong.
There are people accused of rape who didnt do it but get convicted or tried in the court of local opinion that is equally wrong.
While I think there are far more of the former than the latter both are wrong but I dont see a way to fix it when most rapes are by people you know, most false accusations likewise and both have no witnesses so comes down mostly to one saying this happened and the other saying it didnt
NEW THREAD
That's not quite what Robert Fisk meant when he called the Israeli army an "indisciplined rabble".
Meanwhile AFAIAA no major media organ in the world is asking what the hold-up is with the floating pier the US military were supposed to be about to wow everyone with.
No sooner did Mandela take office than he put his signature to one of the biggest weapons deals of all time.
Mandela was the heir to a tribal chieftaincy and his daughter married royalty, so the Mandelas were somewhat atypical victims of white supremacy in South Africa. But I always had great respect for his refusal to renounce violence against the said supremacy.
The afternoon tea is an extra £50 not inclusive, btw, afaics. I guess the price is because that is what tourists will pay.
I think one thing they don't have is a Queen Mother branded Gin.
Maintenance costs are around £4m a year, so I guess the reasons are around meeting that, and the economics probably set up simlarly to say Chatsworth.
It's tricky to argue against without invoking political justifications imo.