Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The Past Is Not Another Country – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,733
edited May 6 in General
imageThe Past Is Not Another Country – politicalbetting.com

9 September 2013: there is a meeting between Brian Altman KC and the Post Office’s in-house and external lawyers. A key witness, Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu, who gave oral evidence at Seema Misra’s 2010 trial, was tainted. Following advice from Simon Clarke, a barrister with Cartwright King, the Post Office had asked them to review its prosecutions since 2010. Its GC had agreed to this as the cut off date even though it excluded the Misra case. What should the Post Office do, however, if she came forward? As recorded by another Cartwright King lawyer, Martin Smith, nothing. The Post Office did not want to give her “a ticket to the Court of Appeal.”

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133
    edited May 6
    First like Lando Norris?
    Second like Max Verstappen.

    Yes, we should be seeing Post Office lawyers struck off and prosecuted for perjury. Total dereliction of duty and a disgrace to the ethics of their profession.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    ydoethur said:

    To quote Alexandre Dumas, 'they'll find extenuating circumstances.'

    Clearly lots of these lawyers should be facing not merely being struck off but criminal charges. But I'm betting it won't. Too many awkward questions for others who don't want that can of worms opened.

    The CPS won't bring charges because there's no realistic prospect of conviction as no jury would convict a lawyer as everybody loves a lawyer.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,807

    ydoethur said:

    To quote Alexandre Dumas, 'they'll find extenuating circumstances.'

    Clearly lots of these lawyers should be facing not merely being struck off but criminal charges. But I'm betting it won't. Too many awkward questions for others who don't want that can of worms opened.

    The CPS won't bring charges because there's no realistic prospect of conviction as no jury would convict a lawyer as everybody loves a lawyer.
    Almost as much as they love bankers.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,164
    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    ydoethur said:

    To quote Alexandre Dumas, 'they'll find extenuating circumstances.'

    Clearly lots of these lawyers should be facing not merely being struck off but criminal charges. But I'm betting it won't. Too many awkward questions for others who don't want that can of worms opened.

    The CPS won't bring charges because there's no realistic prospect of conviction as no jury would convict a lawyer as everybody loves a lawyer.
    Almost as much as they love bankers.
    Or customer service reps?
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,782
    The Post is a foreign country, they do things differently there.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Sandpit said:

    First like Lando Norris?
    Second like Max Verstappen.

    Yes, we should be seeing Post Office lawyers struck off and prosecuted for perjury. Total dereliction of duty and a disgrace to the ethics of their profession.

    Speaking of which, wtf were McLaren thinking to invite Mr Loser with a Small One Shaped Like a Button Mushroom to the Miami GP?

    Public relations disaster out of what should have been a terrific triumph.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    The Post is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

    In this case, a Sicilian cartel...
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 863
    Sandpit said:

    First like Lando Norris?
    Second like Max Verstappen.

    Yes, we should be seeing Post Office lawyers struck off and prosecuted for perjury. Total dereliction of duty and a disgrace to the ethics of their profession.

    I normally try to avoid pb the morning after an F1 race to avoid spoilers (C4 not Sky hence catch-up).

    But your spoiler seems so unlikely to be true in the tedious predictability of this season, that reading it has the race more unpredictable for me, not less. I'll be watching it thinking 'Surely Sandpit was making a wry joke about how dull dominance is in F1?' Even down to the last lap it'll make for a nailbiting finish. I salute you, good sir.

    And now I shall disappear before someone spoils the spoiler.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,120
    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,181

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    Re the header - what or who is GC?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766

    Re the header - what or who is GC?

    General Counsel.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    edited May 6
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
    You canna change the laws of physics, Capt'n
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964

    Re the header - what or who is GC?

    General Counsel.
    Thanks
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    First like Lando Norris?
    Second like Max Verstappen.

    Yes, we should be seeing Post Office lawyers struck off and prosecuted for perjury. Total dereliction of duty and a disgrace to the ethics of their profession.

    I normally try to avoid pb the morning after an F1 race to avoid spoilers (C4 not Sky hence catch-up).

    But your spoiler seems so unlikely to be true in the tedious predictability of this season, that reading it has the race more unpredictable for me, not less. I'll be watching it thinking 'Surely Sandpit was making a wry joke about how dull dominance is in F1?' Even down to the last lap it'll make for a nailbiting finish. I salute you, good sir.

    And now I shall disappear before someone spoils the spoiler.
    Yeah, it was a total wind-up.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,181

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Using physics is cheating.
    Just wait till he also considers losses due to heat, entropy, and friction, and the portion that is lost next time it slows down for a zebra crossing.*

    *Depending on any regenerative braking, but heat and friction also apply here.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 270
    This case has very disturbing parallels with the Lucy Letby case. I have no view on her guilt or innocence, but you have a powerful state run corporation with careers and reputations to protect and pretty much complete control of all the evidence against a powerless employee and, in this case, de facto control of the investigation and prosecution (I understand the role of the police and CPS but it was a doctor who initially fingered her). Add that the consequences of it wasn't her are much graver than in the PO case and that doctors have a high degree of credibility with the public including jurors. And I am no lawyer but I can't imagine what could ever justify a principal witness against her giving evidence anonymously. Surely natural justice requires that if you want the state to lock someone in a cupboard for the rest of their lives you say who you are?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    edited May 6
    On topic, the Sunday Times have done more work on an even bigger scandal than the Post Office, the SAS's murdering dozens of innocent Afghanis then covering it up/planting fake evidence.

    Highlights include a server investigators were wanting access for months but the Special Forces Directorate kept on delaying access

    Eventually special forces relented but the investigators were furious when they turned up to copy the server in December. All the previously deleted data, which would have been accessible on the server, had been permanently expunged when contractors installed a new system that summer.

    The contractors say they warned special forces they were destroying the deleted data but there were no objections or attempts to prevent them....

    ..The SAS then reneged on its agreement to provide access to the remaining data on the server....

    ...Meanwhile, a US-based defence contractor, UTC Aerospace, offered to help recover video footage of the raids which the SAS said it no longer possessed. This would have been critically important evidence. However, the offer was declined by the RMP.

    Then the RMP investigators were ordered to cut ties with advisers from the National Crime Agency and Greater Manchester police whose greater experience in killings had helped to guide their previous inquiries.

    As a replacement, the MoD appointed an advisory group, consisting of a former chief constable and a criminal barrister, who enlisted two former police detectives to do a paper review of the state of the investigation in January 2017.

    The inquiry now involved at least 50 murders but the former detectives were given only eight days for their review. They could not examine all the material but concluded nonetheless that the evidence was “untested, untried and without provenance”.

    Crucially, they decided that the chief suspects — the SAS soldier who made the confession and his commander — should not be arrested because it would be “profoundly unhelpful” to the investigation.


    There's other shocking things this story has thrown up.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sas-murders-war-crime-british-special-forces-vbcnmpkm8
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    edited May 6
    Then there's this

    But the explanations for the killings did not ring true to Johnny Mercer.

    “To suggest that an individual, who knows the game is up, then pulls out a grenade or steps behind a curtain and pulls out a weapon and starts taking on an entire sub-unit 14 times is not plausible,” he later told the Afghan war crimes inquiry. “I’ve never seen that behaviour myself, I’ve never heard of that behaviour myself, and to be asked to believe it time and again is, frankly, a bit of an insult to those of us who operated in the same way.”

    He found the lack of footage from the missions particularly suspicious. Filming the night raids, he said, was a statutory requirement and the operations would not be given approval if video was unavailable.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,120

    On topic, the Sunday Times have done more work on an even bigger scandal than the Post Office, the SAS's murdering dozens of innocent Afghanis then covering it up/planting fake evidence.

    "The Regiment" should have been disbanded years ago. Failing that, at least try to weed out the psychos in the selection process instead of favouring them.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
    It's wrong.

    Fuel consumption indicators are usually just a proxy for inlet manifold vacuum, they are not very accurate for calculating actual fuel consumption. It's actually quite complicated for the ECU to calculate, definitively, the instantaneous fuel consumption because not all of the fuel that is uplifted from the tank is used. Depending on the injector duty cycle and rail pressure some fuel will be returned to the tank unused. Hence the inlet manifold pressure gambit which is generally good enough for a very rough guide.

    This is almost certainly easier on a BEV (as the BCS logs current draw at all times) but the internal network on our iX is locked down tighter than Rishi's ringpiece so my expolatory probing has yeilded little hard information.
    Another possibility, of course, is that my driving style is different from yours.

    I tend not to accelerate hard once I've got the car moving. I prefer to wait for favouring gradients where possible. Where not possible, I just tend to use the throttle gently.

    By your own account...
  • Options
    StaffordKnotStaffordKnot Posts: 85
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    Morning all. On reading through the last thread, some thoughts on Thrashergate. I think it was Wulfrun Phil who posted some polling evidence from 2023 locals of GE VI being wider than LE VI. Whilst that is indeed a piece of supporting evidence, some caution needs applying in that the LE question was about an election about to happen (minds made up) and the GE is, as with all opinion polling between terms, about a date far off not yet defined and, as such, it becomes to some extent a measure of dissatisfaction and with more DKs than likely once minds focussed. Differential weighting would also apply given turnout expectations in both type of election which complicates a dual question poll. So, whilst it does suggest support that at a GE the gap might be wider, putting a figure on it you can rely on is too tricky (and admittedly might be more than 7 or 8% as those polls showed as well as less). Reliance on opinion polling cost May dearly - she continued to focus on places she was getting nowhere near whereas Labour were far more canny and reactive to the ground shifting. The 5 million votes just cast give us a good generic overview of where we stand - somewhat worse for the blues than the Thrasher NEV (which is just a projection of votes cast, not a forecast of votes to come) and somewhat better than the current opinion polling average, the art for the party strategists will be defining just where the line is right now. I'd say about a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour if we voted tomorrow.
    Tactical voting - complicated this time due to boundary changes and imo likely to favour Labour not the LDs as the spectacular opinion poll leads and the seat forecast polls are making Labour look competitive everywhere. Thus we might end up with some (not by any means loads though) seats looking like 1983 - with a big third place vote because the 'tactical' shot was the wrong one
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,807
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Chemical Engineering students, showing a tendency for dark humour, would produce "Chem Eng on Tour" T-shirts with a list of venues such as:

    Flixborough
    Bhopal
    Texas City

    The serious point being that the students are fully aware of these disasters in the industry.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
    It's wrong.

    Fuel consumption indicators are usually just a proxy for inlet manifold vacuum, they are not very accurate for calculating actual fuel consumption. It's actually quite complicated for the ECU to calculate, definitively, the instantaneous fuel consumption because not all of the fuel that is uplifted from the tank is used. Depending on the injector duty cycle and rail pressure some fuel will be returned to the tank unused. Hence the inlet manifold pressure gambit which is generally good enough for a very rough guide.

    This is almost certainly easier on a BEV (as the BCS logs current draw at all times) but the internal network on our iX is locked down tighter than Rishi's ringpiece so my expolatory probing has yeilded little hard information.
    Another possibility, of course, is that my driving style is different from yours.

    I tend not to accelerate hard once I've got the car moving. I prefer to wait for favouring gradients where possible. Where not possible, I just tend to use the throttle gently.

    By your own account...
    Well, obviously, if you wait for a nice stretch of downhill before letting the car accelerate, it’s not going to use so much fuel. But isn’t that missing the point?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,050
    Mr. Flatlander, "There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice. "

    Surely 'should'?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Using physics is cheating.
    Goes without saying.

    But since you (almost) ask me...

    We notice the engine effort to get the car moving from rest to slowly- engine goes vroom and all that. But only for a fairly short time. The ongoing engine effort to maintain speed much less so, even though it's continuous and adds up to more.

    Which, in the context of the Drakeford Memorial Speed Limit, is why 'only slow just outside schools' isn't a great plan efficiency-wise. It's the repeated speeding up and slowing down that burns fuel.

    Intuitions, however intuitive, can be wrong. Which is fine, as long as it's OK to correct them and not to much shame in making a mistake. Maybe the important bit of democratic politics isn't making the initial decision to raise someone or something up, but the subsequent opportunity to chuck them out, or change our collective mind.

    And, to loop back to the header, what went wrong with the Post Office. Intuition said that the SPMs were on the fiddle because the computer said so and it's what people expected. If the lawyers kept pushing that line when they had evidence that it wasn't watertight, something ethical has gone wrong.

    Where do lawyers put the line between 'trying to win' and 'trying to get at the truth'? Especially when defending the fox in the henhouse?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543
    edited May 6
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
    It's wrong.

    Fuel consumption indicators are usually just a proxy for inlet manifold vacuum, they are not very accurate for calculating actual fuel consumption. It's actually quite complicated for the ECU to calculate, definitively, the instantaneous fuel consumption because not all of the fuel that is uplifted from the tank is used. Depending on the injector duty cycle and rail pressure some fuel will be returned to the tank unused. Hence the inlet manifold pressure gambit which is generally good enough for a very rough guide.

    This is almost certainly easier on a BEV (as the BCS logs current draw at all times) but the internal network on our iX is locked down tighter than Rishi's ringpiece so my expolatory probing has yeilded little hard information.
    Another possibility, of course, is that my driving style is different from yours.

    I tend not to accelerate hard once I've got the car moving. I prefer to wait for favouring gradients where possible. Where not possible, I just tend to use the throttle gently.

    By your own account...
    As a youngster did you ever get your dad's car up to a 100 on the Marcle straight? A right of passage in 1980 Ledbury. We had a Marina, so it was an unfulfilled ambition rather than reality, but friends whose parents had more sophisticated machinery cruised to success. These days it strikes me that such an adventure was extremely dangerous. It's a great deal shorter than I remember it.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
    There's also the energy required to maintain at 20 mph once achieved. Specifically, a journey through a 30 mph zone that takes 2 minutes will take 3 minutes at 20 mph. A 50% longer journey.

    It is also producing correspondingly more air pollution through that 20 mph zone.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    Looks like Israel is going in to Rafah imminently (leafleting refugees to move out of/avoid parts of the area). That's another several weeks/months of this being the hot button issue.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,181
    edited May 6

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
    Inertia isn't overcome by energy but by momentum: mass x velocity.

    Sure, m omentum is a linear function of velocity, but energy is a non-unit power function, a square.

    Energy conferred on a moving object: = 0.5 x mass x (velocity squared).

    So it costs 9/4 x as much to go to 3/2 the speed.
  • Options
    SteveSSteveS Posts: 68

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
    E=(1/2).mv2

    It ignores wind resistance which will exacerbate the effect even more and also increases with the square of velocity.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
    There's also the energy required to maintain at 20 mph once achieved. Specifically, a journey through a 30 mph zone that takes 2 minutes will take 3 minutes at 20 mph. A 50% longer journey.

    It is also producing correspondingly more air pollution through that 20 mph zone.
    Isn't the notion, even in Wales, that child pedestrians are exponentially more likely to survive a conflict at 20 than 30?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,402
    Thank you, Cycleefree.

    We're getting down to crunch time in The Inquiry. The lawyers have been very much under scrutiny recently and this week it should become more intense. As you indicate, they have not come out of it well so far, and one may expect the pattern to continue. Clark will be especially interesting.

    Many of them should of course be prosecuted. Will they be? History suggests otherwise, as your Denning quote indicates. Perhaps rather than LP Hartley we should be quoting Douglas Adams' witty twist on it.

    The past is indeed just like another Country. They do things exactly the same there.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436
    The pedant in me wishes to point out that in 2013 Brian Altman was not a KC

    Otherwise, thank you @Cyclefree for all your work on this appalling business
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610

    Morning all. On reading through the last thread, some thoughts on Thrashergate. I think it was Wulfrun Phil who posted some polling evidence from 2023 locals of GE VI being wider than LE VI. Whilst that is indeed a piece of supporting evidence, some caution needs applying in that the LE question was about an election about to happen (minds made up) and the GE is, as with all opinion polling between terms, about a date far off not yet defined and, as such, it becomes to some extent a measure of dissatisfaction and with more DKs than likely once minds focussed. Differential weighting would also apply given turnout expectations in both type of election which complicates a dual question poll. So, whilst it does suggest support that at a GE the gap might be wider, putting a figure on it you can rely on is too tricky (and admittedly might be more than 7 or 8% as those polls showed as well as less). Reliance on opinion polling cost May dearly - she continued to focus on places she was getting nowhere near whereas Labour were far more canny and reactive to the ground shifting. The 5 million votes just cast give us a good generic overview of where we stand - somewhat worse for the blues than the Thrasher NEV (which is just a projection of votes cast, not a forecast of votes to come) and somewhat better than the current opinion polling average, the art for the party strategists will be defining just where the line is right now. I'd say about a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour if we voted tomorrow.
    Tactical voting - complicated this time due to boundary changes and imo likely to favour Labour not the LDs as the spectacular opinion poll leads and the seat forecast polls are making Labour look competitive everywhere. Thus we might end up with some (not by any means loads though) seats looking like 1983 - with a big third place vote because the 'tactical' shot was the wrong one

    Beneath Thrasher there is the valid bigger picture point that there is little enthusiasm for Labour, and the locals show that people are willing to shop elsewhere when alternatives are available and credible.

    But it’s a shame that his analysis seems to have compounded a number of errors. Firstly, assuming no change in Scotland and Wales, when in the former at least all the evidence points to significant change. Secondly, by what they’ve done with the ‘others’ - seven other gains doesn’t seem credibly the result of any UNS model unless it’s a simplistic one that treats voters for the disparate range of other parties as one bloc backing a single candidate, which is obvious nonsense. Otherwise where are these seven other gains in England? Thirdly, by dropping local voters into a national model without any adjustment, when we all know people vote differently in local elections and the LDs in particular pick up local votes thay they never get in a GE.

    And the gross error is that, while the national government and national Tory politicians are widely despised, not all voters punish their local councils and councillors accordingly, especially where they’re doing a reasonable job.

    The only counter-argument is that Reform didn’t put up many LE candidates but presumably in the Genny Lec will stand everywhere? Thus potentially syphoning off more unhappy Tories. But that could be balanced off by some who are telling pollsters they are Reform voters as a protest but won’t actually carry through.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    Yeah it’s just rubbish from Sky News to keep people thinking that they are important.

    No one in the News likes to know that they are no longer newsworthy.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    edited May 6

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    I would be very interested to see the calculations behind that - it doesn't feel right. Increasing by 10mph takes 20% more energy than increasing by 20mph? And that's before you look at overcoming the initial inertia.
    There's also the energy required to maintain at 20 mph once achieved. Specifically, a journey through a 30 mph zone that takes 2 minutes will take 3 minutes at 20 mph. A 50% longer journey.

    It is also producing correspondingly more air pollution through that 20 mph zone.
    Isn't the notion, even in Wales, that child pedestrians are exponentially more likely to survive a conflict at 20 than 30?
    It's one argument. Bear in mind there is a third shorter journey time though for any incident to occur.

    Never seen it stacked up against the increased air pollution point though.

    "Air pollution is harmful to human health and damages the environment. The researchers estimated that 48,625 adults die prematurely each year in the UK due to particulate matter pollution."

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/oct/uk-air-pollution-regulations-will-reduce-deaths-do-little-protect-ecosystems
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Feel free to tell my dashboard fuel consumption indicator that it's wrong.
    It's wrong.

    Fuel consumption indicators are usually just a proxy for inlet manifold vacuum, they are not very accurate for calculating actual fuel consumption. It's actually quite complicated for the ECU to calculate, definitively, the instantaneous fuel consumption because not all of the fuel that is uplifted from the tank is used. Depending on the injector duty cycle and rail pressure some fuel will be returned to the tank unused. Hence the inlet manifold pressure gambit which is generally good enough for a very rough guide.

    This is almost certainly easier on a BEV (as the BCS logs current draw at all times) but the internal network on our iX is locked down tighter than Rishi's ringpiece so my expolatory probing has yeilded little hard information.
    Another possibility, of course, is that my driving style is different from yours.

    I tend not to accelerate hard once I've got the car moving. I prefer to wait for favouring gradients where possible. Where not possible, I just tend to use the throttle gently.

    By your own account...
    Well, obviously, if you wait for a nice stretch of downhill before letting the car accelerate, it’s not going to use so much fuel. But isn’t that missing the point?
    It's using physics. Apparently, that's cheating.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,181

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn't in my car. The real drainer is from 10mph to about 20 (in second and then third) After that the building momentum helps anyway.

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 13.4 m/s (30mph) ~108,000 J

    Energy required to accelerate a 1200kg car to 9m/s (20 mph) ~48,600 J
    Using physics is cheating.
    Goes without saying.

    But since you (almost) ask me...

    We notice the engine effort to get the car moving from rest to slowly- engine goes vroom and all that. But only for a fairly short time. The ongoing engine effort to maintain speed much less so, even though it's continuous and adds up to more.

    Which, in the context of the Drakeford Memorial Speed Limit, is why 'only slow just outside schools' isn't a great plan efficiency-wise. It's the repeated speeding up and slowing down that burns fuel.

    Intuitions, however intuitive, can be wrong. Which is fine, as long as it's OK to correct them and not to much shame in making a mistake. Maybe the important bit of democratic politics isn't making the initial decision to raise someone or something up, but the subsequent opportunity to chuck them out, or change our collective mind.

    And, to loop back to the header, what went wrong with the Post Office. Intuition said that the SPMs were on the fiddle because the computer said so and it's what people expected. If the lawyers kept pushing that line when they had evidence that it wasn't watertight, something ethical has gone wrong.

    Where do lawyers put the line between 'trying to win' and 'trying to get at the truth'? Especially when defending the fox in the henhouse?
    And we also have the new DWP system set up for computer detection of fraud in beneft claims from data trawled from bank accounts - and so inherently raw and dirty.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,625
    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
    Are they going to be punching themselves this time, on the grounds that they are all brainless?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,050
    Mr. Pioneers, your comment is hyperbolic.

    "There is a howling at the moon element at this. The ULEZ formers want to impose their rights to kill people with toxic air - what about the rights of the people being killed or damaged? The 20 mph formers want to kill more pedestrians - what about the rights of the people who don’t want to be killed?"

    By that rationale any train or car should be motionless lest they crush someone's foot.

    It's perfectly legitimate to advocate a lower speed limit in the name of safety, and equally valid to comment on the economic/personal cost of slower travel times. One side isn't devilish, and the other is most certainly not holy.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436

    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
    Disgusting.

    Someone tried to tell me that it’s not evil, but that’s precisely what it is.

    Warmongering the disabled so that you inject that into the already vile culture wars is despicable and will take years to repair.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,604
    I mean good post and all that but there are plenty of (I believe full time) commentators on the PO Inquiry on the web who are looking at this stuff from the Law Gazette to ofc Nick Wallis.

    I don't think it's our edge to have posts about it on here in particular.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,402

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    What last Thursday’s election results show is that the key number in the opinion polls is Labour + LibDem + Green. It’s not perfect but it’s a very good anti-Tory tactical voting indicator. And it’s anti-Toryism that dominates the political mood right now. Labour will benefit most from this, of course. But the LDs could also reap big rewards.

    It's surprising that the main GE betting markets have remained largely unmoved by the results from last Thursday.

    There's a general consensus that the council results were middling to bad for the Tories. The Mayoral elections were worse. Another opportunity to reset has passed the Tories by. The clock has run down a bit more. I suspect a lot of Billy Bunters are reading more into Thrasher and Mike Harper's stoical defence than is warranted by the facts on the ground.

    You are right, Southam. I guess that like me you have been selling Tory seats for a while now. Personally I'm not minded to trade out yet.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,275

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    IanB2 said:

    Morning all. On reading through the last thread, some thoughts on Thrashergate. I think it was Wulfrun Phil who posted some polling evidence from 2023 locals of GE VI being wider than LE VI. Whilst that is indeed a piece of supporting evidence, some caution needs applying in that the LE question was about an election about to happen (minds made up) and the GE is, as with all opinion polling between terms, about a date far off not yet defined and, as such, it becomes to some extent a measure of dissatisfaction and with more DKs than likely once minds focussed. Differential weighting would also apply given turnout expectations in both type of election which complicates a dual question poll. So, whilst it does suggest support that at a GE the gap might be wider, putting a figure on it you can rely on is too tricky (and admittedly might be more than 7 or 8% as those polls showed as well as less). Reliance on opinion polling cost May dearly - she continued to focus on places she was getting nowhere near whereas Labour were far more canny and reactive to the ground shifting. The 5 million votes just cast give us a good generic overview of where we stand - somewhat worse for the blues than the Thrasher NEV (which is just a projection of votes cast, not a forecast of votes to come) and somewhat better than the current opinion polling average, the art for the party strategists will be defining just where the line is right now. I'd say about a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour if we voted tomorrow.
    Tactical voting - complicated this time due to boundary changes and imo likely to favour Labour not the LDs as the spectacular opinion poll leads and the seat forecast polls are making Labour look competitive everywhere. Thus we might end up with some (not by any means loads though) seats looking like 1983 - with a big third place vote because the 'tactical' shot was the wrong one

    Beneath Thrasher there is the valid bigger picture point that there is little enthusiasm for Labour, and the locals show that people are willing to shop elsewhere when alternatives are available and credible.

    But it’s a shame that his analysis seems to have compounded a number of errors. Firstly, assuming no change in Scotland and Wales, when in the former at least all the evidence points to significant change. Secondly, by what they’ve done with the ‘others’ - seven other gains doesn’t seem credibly the result of any UNS model unless it’s a simplistic one that treats voters for the disparate range of other parties as one bloc backing a single candidate, which is obvious nonsense. Otherwise where are these seven other gains in England? Thirdly, by dropping local voters into a national model without any adjustment, when we all know people vote differently in local elections and the LDs in particular pick up local votes thay they never get in a GE.

    And the gross error is that, while the national government and national Tory politicians are widely despised, not all voters punish their local councils and councillors accordingly, especially where they’re doing a reasonable job.

    The only counter-argument is that Reform didn’t put up many LE candidates but presumably in the Genny Lec will stand everywhere? Thus potentially syphoning off more unhappy Tories. But that could be balanced off by some who are telling pollsters they are Reform voters as a protest but won’t actually carry through.
    That's all fair comment and the NEV has been grossly abused no doubt.
    If Reform are being overstated in polling as seems likely then we are not a million miles away from a low 40s high 20s scenario perhaps. Something in the 10 to 14 point lead range - enough for a pretty comprehensive win through to Blair styley. I still fancy about a 90 seat majority.
    One other factor - Galloway standing everywhere (he says, he's already got 150 in place though). As we saw with Yakoob in West Midlands, he picked up 60,000 votes and only announced five weeks ago standing on a gaza ticket. They need to start prompting WPB in polling, if he's at 1% or no show then forget it, but if they start hitting 3% then he becomes a complicating factor. Where they stood Thursday they generally did pretty well. Blackburn, Rochdale, Halifax, Oldham, Birmingham etc could be interesting.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,120
    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    I don't understand why a cap on immigration has to be a referendum commitment. They could fucking bring one in tomorrow if they wanted to. Do they not realise that they actually are the government because the fucking rest of certainly know it only too well.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,604
    edited May 6
    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Homunculus - little person or little man.

    Don't be a twat you already have us in stitches with "Richi".
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436
    edited May 6
    TOPPING said:

    I mean good post and all that but there are plenty of (I believe full time) commentators on the PO Inquiry on the web who are looking at this stuff from the Law Gazette to ofc Nick Wallis.

    I don't think it's our edge to have posts about it on here in particular.

    Generally I think you’re spot on about this.

    It’s a political betting site first and foremost.

    I equally, as many of you know, don’t think it’s our place to pitch in on the (frankly tedious and largely irrelevant) trans debate, to which we can add other culture war guff.

    There’s a time and a place and this isn’t it.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,807
    IanB2 said:

    Morning all. On reading through the last thread, some thoughts on Thrashergate. I think it was Wulfrun Phil who posted some polling evidence from 2023 locals of GE VI being wider than LE VI. Whilst that is indeed a piece of supporting evidence, some caution needs applying in that the LE question was about an election about to happen (minds made up) and the GE is, as with all opinion polling between terms, about a date far off not yet defined and, as such, it becomes to some extent a measure of dissatisfaction and with more DKs than likely once minds focussed. Differential weighting would also apply given turnout expectations in both type of election which complicates a dual question poll. So, whilst it does suggest support that at a GE the gap might be wider, putting a figure on it you can rely on is too tricky (and admittedly might be more than 7 or 8% as those polls showed as well as less). Reliance on opinion polling cost May dearly - she continued to focus on places she was getting nowhere near whereas Labour were far more canny and reactive to the ground shifting. The 5 million votes just cast give us a good generic overview of where we stand - somewhat worse for the blues than the Thrasher NEV (which is just a projection of votes cast, not a forecast of votes to come) and somewhat better than the current opinion polling average, the art for the party strategists will be defining just where the line is right now. I'd say about a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour if we voted tomorrow.
    Tactical voting - complicated this time due to boundary changes and imo likely to favour Labour not the LDs as the spectacular opinion poll leads and the seat forecast polls are making Labour look competitive everywhere. Thus we might end up with some (not by any means loads though) seats looking like 1983 - with a big third place vote because the 'tactical' shot was the wrong one

    Beneath Thrasher there is the valid bigger picture point that there is little enthusiasm for Labour, and the locals show that people are willing to shop elsewhere when alternatives are available and credible.

    But it’s a shame that his analysis seems to have compounded a number of errors. Firstly, assuming no change in Scotland and Wales, when in the former at least all the evidence points to significant change. Secondly, by what they’ve done with the ‘others’ - seven other gains doesn’t seem credibly the result of any UNS model unless it’s a simplistic one that treats voters for the disparate range of other parties as one bloc backing a single candidate, which is obvious nonsense. Otherwise where are these seven other gains in England? Thirdly, by dropping local voters into a national model without any adjustment, when we all know people vote differently in local elections and the LDs in particular pick up local votes thay they never get in a GE.

    And the gross error is that, while the national government and national Tory politicians are widely despised, not all voters punish their local councils and councillors accordingly, especially where they’re doing a reasonable job.

    The only counter-argument is that Reform didn’t put up many LE candidates but presumably in the Genny Lec will stand everywhere? Thus potentially syphoning off more unhappy Tories. But that could be balanced off by some who are telling pollsters they are Reform voters as a protest but won’t actually carry through.
    "when alternatives are available and credible."

    They've voted in a load of councillors who, in previous times, would have had their words spoken by an actor.

    Didn't get your bin emptied? Blame Netanyahu.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543

    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
    Don't the electorate love a little performative cruelty?

    TBF, Team Rishi have turned (with the assistance of Thrasher) a thumping loss into a reasonably solid performance. Perhaps Jess Phillips is right after all about some remaining Conservatives.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,402
    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    Redditch is not far up the road from me. The Beeb did some good pop voxes there recently.

    When the individual seat markets go up, back Labour.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,039

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    18 months ago my feeling was that a hung parliament with Labour on most seats was the most likely outcome.

    The ineffable ineptitude of Rishi & co since then - a trend which common sense tells us is not about to reverse - has set Labour on a fairly smooth course to victory; I’d guess 50-100 seat majority. I also expect the Lib Dems to run a considerably more astute campaign and make the 40-50 seat mark.

    The country is done with the Tories. They’re not busted flush, or even a busted low two-pair. They’re a rainbow of rags on the river, and everyone can see it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
    It's beginning to look as though they knew that from the start - and didn't care.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,658
    edited May 6
    On the Tory fightback, it was amusing to hear Maria Caulfield on R4 this morning using the Blackpool South by-election as evidence that the Tories didn't have that bad a day on Thursday.

    The essence of her argument was that the Tories would have won Blackpool South if they'd got more people out to vote for them.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,625
    Lord Frosts recipe for reviving tory fortunes in Telegraph:

    "we tilt to more attractive mainstream conservative policies – tougher on migration and the ECHR, more tax cuts, more spending cuts, deregulation, proper planning reform, fracking and a serious assault on the burden of net zero, rolling back diversity and inclusion..."
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543

    Lord Frosts recipe for reviving tory fortunes in Telegraph:

    "we tilt to more attractive mainstream conservative policies – tougher on migration and the ECHR, more tax cuts, more spending cuts, deregulation, proper planning reform, fracking and a serious assault on the burden of net zero, rolling back diversity and inclusion..."

    "Mainstream"?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,807
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
    Extreme weather events are in the standard list of guidewords in a HAZID (Hazard Identification) study. Ensuring that, for example, equipment has a suitable minimum as well as maximum mechanical design temperature is essential.


    P.S. Autocorrect suggested HAZING in place of HAZID. Judging by some of the videos that are, er, apparently available online, this would make for a more entertaining meeting, although to the detriment of process safety.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,625

    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    Redditch is not far up the road from me. The Beeb did some good pop voxes there recently.

    When the individual seat markets go up, back Labour.
    Yep.

    Where is BF and its seat market? There's only two/three/eight months to go!!!
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,658

    Lord Frosts recipe for reviving tory fortunes in Telegraph:

    "we tilt to more attractive mainstream conservative policies – tougher on migration and the ECHR, more tax cuts, more spending cuts, deregulation, proper planning reform, fracking and a serious assault on the burden of net zero, rolling back diversity and inclusion..."

    He's right. Up and down the land, all we are hearing on the doorstep is a plea for large-scale fracking.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,807

    Final point on the trauma of 20 / ULEZ (same issue - Labour). The people very angry about Labour think everyone else must be as angry. But as the huge win for Khan shows, they are not.

    There is a howling at the moon element at this. The ULEZ formers want to impose their rights to kill people with toxic air - what about the rights of the people being killed or damaged? The 20 mph formers want to kill more pedestrians - what about the rights of the people who don’t want to be killed?

    This is the issue. Are your personal rights, personal freedoms really rights and freedoms when they take away the rights and freedoms of Other People? Are you automatically worth more because you are you and they are other people?

    That is the political battle. Self vs society. And looking at the polls and results, society is heading for a landslide.

    That's the bit of libertarianism that too many seem to forget.

    You should be free to do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,625

    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
    Don't the electorate love a little performative cruelty?

    TBF, Team Rishi have turned (with the assistance of Thrasher) a thumping loss into a reasonably solid performance. Perhaps Jess Phillips is right after all about some remaining Conservatives.
    Cue various Titanic metaphors.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    Heathener said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I look forward to another Richi Relaunch this week

    More of that whiny, tetchy homunculus explaining that the voters got it wrong last week is just what Labour needs now

    Another round of bash the disabled is on the media grid apparently.
    Disgusting.

    Someone tried to tell me that it’s not evil, but that’s precisely what it is.

    Warmongering the disabled so that you inject that into the already vile culture wars is despicable and will take years to repair.
    Sunak is only following Blair's lead.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.

    The paint was thrown at the gate blocking public access to the street from Whitehall.

    "Blair's Blood" was daubed on the pavement nearby.

    Four protesters got out of their wheelchairs to smear the red paint on the road.

    Kevin Donnellon, 35, a thalidomide victim, said the Government's intention to reform the benefits system would lead him to lose his invalidity benefit and mobility allowance.

    He said: "I will not be able to run my car without my benefit and allowance money.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    On the Tory fightback, it was amusing to hear Maria Caulfield on R4 this morning using the Blackpool South by-election as evidence that the Tories didn't have that bad a day on Thursday.

    The essence of her argument was that the Tories would have won Blackpool South if they'd got more people out to vote for them.

    Blears on that night Labour lost two by-elections springs to mind.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,679
    edited May 6
    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    My impression from the outside is that lawyers are taught how to win, how to argue a weak case. It's one reason why we've ended up with so many of the legal profession in our politics at the moment.

    Because even a guilty criminal should have legal representation there's an acceptance of being on the "wrong" side of a case, and this necessarily blurs the moral boundaries when it comes to breaking rules on things like disclosure in pursuit of the imperative to win the case.

    If lawyer training went too hard into questions of the morally of what they should do, then you'd find it a lot harder to find legal representation for murderers, rapists and the like.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,625
    Pat McFadden
    @patmcfaddenmp

    Labour’s progress in the south of England. The amount of the blue wall turning red is an under noticed and underwritten story.

    https://twitter.com/patmcfaddenmp/status/1787214215498850371
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    One for our Scotchpert this morning

    @GdnPolitics
    John Swinney set to be confirmed as new SNP leader and Scotland’s first minister – UK politics live
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,039

    Lord Frosts recipe for reviving tory fortunes in Telegraph:

    "we tilt to more attractive mainstream conservative policies – tougher on migration and the ECHR, more tax cuts, more spending cuts, deregulation, proper planning reform, fracking and a serious assault on the burden of net zero, rolling back diversity and inclusion..."

    Keep talking, Frosty.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,280
    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    It’s been a bizarre few days for political ‘analysis’, I have commented on the frankly weird and disturbing incessant ramping of Hall on here masquerading as betting insight. But even that was based on initial rumours that Hall could win. She got utterly hammered. I have been away all weekend. Did we ever ascertain from where the initial notion arose?
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,461

    On the Tory fightback, it was amusing to hear Maria Caulfield on R4 this morning using the Blackpool South by-election as evidence that the Tories didn't have that bad a day on Thursday.

    The essence of her argument was that the Tories would have won Blackpool South if they'd got more people out to vote for them.

    And that is the crux of the “hung parliament” play. They are going for ex Tories and non-voters.

    Which is great! But the extra-Tories are determined to kick the Tories, and the non-voters have no issue to pull them out to vote
  • Options
    CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 256

    Lord Frosts recipe for reviving tory fortunes in Telegraph:

    "we tilt to more attractive mainstream conservative policies – tougher on migration and the ECHR, more tax cuts, more spending cuts, deregulation, proper planning reform, fracking and a serious assault on the burden of net zero, rolling back diversity and inclusion..."

    From the people who didn't know what a customs union was when they began negotiating britaing exit from the EU (sic) 🙄🙄🙄🙄
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,949
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
    I find the social structure of the these events fascinating. As Herman Kahn observed, when a problem gets big enough, the person raising the issue becomes the problem.

    The Horizon system was apparently fixable and at not incredible cost (despite the incompetence of the project as a whole) - according the IT expert who reviewed the project and raised an early alarm. A few bits needed re-writing. But.

    Face. The Horizon system had been sold, inside the Post Office, as the Big Leap. Bonuses conferred, promotions made. Too many Proper People would be made to look ridiculous. And Proper People can never be made to look ridiculous.

    So instead of quietly fixing the problem, a spiral of coverup and failure.

    Among other things, the Proper People made this hundreds of times worse *for themselves*
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610

    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    It’s been a bizarre few days for political ‘analysis’, I have commented on the frankly weird and disturbing incessant ramping of Hall on here masquerading as betting insight. But even that was based on initial rumours that Hall could win. She got utterly hammered. I have been away all weekend. Did we ever ascertain from where the initial notion arose?
    Sorry, but weren’t you one of them?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,402

    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    It’s been a bizarre few days for political ‘analysis’, I have commented on the frankly weird and disturbing incessant ramping of Hall on here masquerading as betting insight. But even that was based on initial rumours that Hall could win. She got utterly hammered. I have been away all weekend. Did we ever ascertain from where the initial notion arose?
    Try reading 'The Day The Dam Broke' by James Thurber.

    Says it all.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,431

    IanB2 said:

    Morning all. On reading through the last thread, some thoughts on Thrashergate. I think it was Wulfrun Phil who posted some polling evidence from 2023 locals of GE VI being wider than LE VI. Whilst that is indeed a piece of supporting evidence, some caution needs applying in that the LE question was about an election about to happen (minds made up) and the GE is, as with all opinion polling between terms, about a date far off not yet defined and, as such, it becomes to some extent a measure of dissatisfaction and with more DKs than likely once minds focussed. Differential weighting would also apply given turnout expectations in both type of election which complicates a dual question poll. So, whilst it does suggest support that at a GE the gap might be wider, putting a figure on it you can rely on is too tricky (and admittedly might be more than 7 or 8% as those polls showed as well as less). Reliance on opinion polling cost May dearly - she continued to focus on places she was getting nowhere near whereas Labour were far more canny and reactive to the ground shifting. The 5 million votes just cast give us a good generic overview of where we stand - somewhat worse for the blues than the Thrasher NEV (which is just a projection of votes cast, not a forecast of votes to come) and somewhat better than the current opinion polling average, the art for the party strategists will be defining just where the line is right now. I'd say about a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour if we voted tomorrow.
    Tactical voting - complicated this time due to boundary changes and imo likely to favour Labour not the LDs as the spectacular opinion poll leads and the seat forecast polls are making Labour look competitive everywhere. Thus we might end up with some (not by any means loads though) seats looking like 1983 - with a big third place vote because the 'tactical' shot was the wrong one

    Beneath Thrasher there is the valid bigger picture point that there is little enthusiasm for Labour, and the locals show that people are willing to shop elsewhere when alternatives are available and credible.

    But it’s a shame that his analysis seems to have compounded a number of errors. Firstly, assuming no change in Scotland and Wales, when in the former at least all the evidence points to significant change. Secondly, by what they’ve done with the ‘others’ - seven other gains doesn’t seem credibly the result of any UNS model unless it’s a simplistic one that treats voters for the disparate range of other parties as one bloc backing a single candidate, which is obvious nonsense. Otherwise where are these seven other gains in England? Thirdly, by dropping local voters into a national model without any adjustment, when we all know people vote differently in local elections and the LDs in particular pick up local votes thay they never get in a GE.

    And the gross error is that, while the national government and national Tory politicians are widely despised, not all voters punish their local councils and councillors accordingly, especially where they’re doing a reasonable job.

    The only counter-argument is that Reform didn’t put up many LE candidates but presumably in the Genny Lec will stand everywhere? Thus potentially syphoning off more unhappy Tories. But that could be balanced off by some who are telling pollsters they are Reform voters as a protest but won’t actually carry through.
    "when alternatives are available and credible."

    They've voted in a load of councillors who, in previous times, would have had their words spoken by an actor.

    Didn't get your bin emptied? Blame Netanyahu.
    I guess you’ll be outraged that Sir Keir wants to win back those who ‘voted in a load of councillors who, in previous times, would have had their words spoken by an actor’. I mean that virtually makes him a Hamas supporter doesn’t it?

    Fear not, there’s a fair chance he’s producing equivocating waffle.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-05/starmer-says-he-is-determined-to-win-back-voters-who-snubbed-labour-over-gaza
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
    It's beginning to look as though they knew that from the start - and didn't care.
    It does start to seem like that, although as we have seen in other industries the common sense solution can quickly disappear when up against an institutional need to get things done, and many otherwise good people can be talked into going along with that poor decision for a whole variety of reasons.

    The decision to launch Challenger on that very cold morning being one of those, against the advice of key suppliers, with previous delays mounting up, threatening to derail the whole Shuttle programme if they didn’t get on and launch her quickly. Of course, the end result was a very much derailed Shuttle programme, and seven dead astronauts.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,280

    Mr. Pioneers, your comment is hyperbolic.

    "There is a howling at the moon element at this. The ULEZ formers want to impose their rights to kill people with toxic air - what about the rights of the people being killed or damaged? The 20 mph formers want to kill more pedestrians - what about the rights of the people who don’t want to be killed?"

    By that rationale any train or car should be motionless lest they crush someone's foot.

    It's perfectly legitimate to advocate a lower speed limit in the name of safety, and equally valid to comment on the economic/personal cost of slower travel times. One side isn't devilish, and the other is most certainly not holy.

    The fuss over 20mph in Wales is just weird though. Large swathes of London have been 20mph for a fair while now. You rapidly get used to it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    My impression from the outside is that lawyers are taught how to win, how to argue a weak case. It's one reason why we've ended up with so many of the legal profession in our politics at the moment.

    Because even a guilty criminal should have legal representation there's an acceptance of being on the "wrong" side of a case, and this necessarily blurs the moral boundaries when it comes to breaking rules on things like disclosure in pursuit of the imperative to win the case.

    If lawyer training went too hard into questions of the morally of what they should do, then you'd find it a lot harder to find legal representation for murderers, rapists and the like.
    The wider question is, as with politics, whether this is a flaw in the British fondness for the adversarial system of justice. Watching a TV series like Spiral shows the French system in operation, which probably has different weaknesses, but does illustrate that there are alternative ways of doing things. Do other systems have so many miscarriages?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,280
    IanB2 said:

    carnforth said:

    All this crap about a hung parliament. Jeez.

    Redditch has a 16K tory majority. It's council went Labour massively on Thursday.

    Middle England.

    It is not even on the target list of seats as far as I can see.

    a) Different turnout
    b) Local elections sometimes have opposite results to general elections.

    But Hung Parliament is stretching it, yes.
    It’s been a bizarre few days for political ‘analysis’, I have commented on the frankly weird and disturbing incessant ramping of Hall on here masquerading as betting insight. But even that was based on initial rumours that Hall could win. She got utterly hammered. I have been away all weekend. Did we ever ascertain from where the initial notion arose?
    Sorry, but weren’t you one of them?
    No, I said at one stage that my view had been changed by the posts on here - and also said at the time (in the same post) that I was almost certainly being irrational. I was certainly influenced by it. But then, in the past, PB has been a generally good guide on election night. Not this time!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,949
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    Good point. Engineering and aeronautics courses spend an awful lot of time discussing some of the most monumental screwups of their profession - which is why we have fewer planes falling out of the sky and fewer structures collapsing then ever before - because everyone makes a point of learning from all of those mistakes, and there are many regulations written in blood.

    Some humility from the lawyers would go a long way - but lawyers don’t seem to do humility, certainly not any of those who worked for the Post Office.
    Indeed. They were the most popular lectures on my course.

    What you designed as a static structure will have dynamic loads
    Your roof might end up 3x heavier if it snows
    Brittle things eventually fail way below their nominal strength
    Check what is on paper is what was built

    etc etc

    There must be an equivalent for miscarriages of justice.
    Snow is a real bugger for building design, a lot of collapses are still caused by unusual amounts of the white stuff falling out of the sky and settling on the roof.

    Same with low temperatures making materials brittle and more prone to failure - ask the crew of the Challenger space shuttle about that one, that was a great case study in institutional failings and what pilots now call get-there-itis, where the pressure to conduct an activity becomes overwhelming, long after the common sense decision to avoid it departed the room. Definitely some equivalents there to the Post Office, as they kept up the prosecutions long after they knew the Horizon system was faulty.
    It's beginning to look as though they knew that from the start - and didn't care.
    They knew from the start. And they cared.

    They knew in a strange way. The moment that evidence was bought to them, they brushed it aside. Tried not to know it officially. To Know it in the sense of admitting they’d read one of the millions of pieces of paper they love so deeply, would have been to break The Veil Of Ignorance. But the Veil was pretty see through.

    They cared, alright. To manage and curate the knowledge of the problem. To delicately create channels for the knowledge to flow away from them, or inconvenient people. They worked jolly hard to manage not knowing there was a problem and for all the Right People to not know there was a problem.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,282
    … This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further…

    I wonder what every sensible person in the land would say to Lord Denning today ?

    The arrogant old pillock.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,848
    I have just seen the most incredible thing. It will hit public consciousness in about a week or two. Its world changing because it’s REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,949
    Nigelb said:

    … This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further…

    I wonder what every sensible person in the land would say to Lord Denning today ?

    The arrogant old pillock.

    “Here is your appointment as CEO of the Post Office, M’lud”
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    Carnyx said:

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? And surely, surely Lord Denning’s, appalling remarks in the Birmingham six case should be well known all student lawyers.

    Mm, quite so. An interesting header. No idea how they teach student lawyers, but case studies of failures and disasters seem to be very much par for the course in engineering and aeronautics. Yet we learn that "the history of miscarriages of justice is not a topic much taught to aspiring or practising lawyers".
    My impression from the outside is that lawyers are taught how to win, how to argue a weak case. It's one reason why we've ended up with so many of the legal profession in our politics at the moment.

    Because even a guilty criminal should have legal representation there's an acceptance of being on the "wrong" side of a case, and this necessarily blurs the moral boundaries when it comes to breaking rules on things like disclosure in pursuit of the imperative to win the case.

    If lawyer training went too hard into questions of the morally of what they should do, then you'd find it a lot harder to find legal representation for murderers, rapists and the like.
    I disagree. There is a very strong moral case for giving legal representation to those accused of such crimes and it is the same one which lies behind the need for disclosure: fairness and equality of arms between the state and individuals.

    There is a lot of learning to be had from what goes wrong in any trade or profession. But some are better than others at learning from this and embedding it in their training than others. I have written about the law but I would also teach everyone in finance about all the previous disasters because having lived through several cycles of the, and having helped clean up some of them, the same issues / bad behaviour keep on happening.

    It is an important lesson to learn and the sooner you learn it the more likely you are to avoid falling into the same traps.
Sign In or Register to comment.