politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB had held Durham NW then Starmer’s task could have been
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB had held Durham NW then Starmer’s task could have been more challenging
At 2:30 this afternoon the first stage of Labour’s election contest will be over. At the moment there are questions over whether Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry will actually get to the magical 22. If they don’t then they are out.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.
I'm still reasonably optimistic that Biden will get there in the end, but clearly there is a chance now of Dem activists giving me a fright.
It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.
Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....
EDIT: I have!
Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.
There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.
It looks like they think he still did it. I assume it was a case of means justifying the ends at the time. A very slippery slope.
Dreadful, and compounded by the refusal to apologise.
Procedures at the time were 'very different' because it was subsequently shown that they protected so many lying bastards in the police.
Wonder how accurate the description of the Met's behaviour 15 years earlier in the Keeler Affair, as shown last night, was!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1216690648671248385?s=20
"Andrew Gilligan, the Prime Minister’s transport adviser, has urged him to scrap the London to Birmingham leg of HS2 and concentrate on putting money into northern areas that switched to the Tories in the general election."
In the criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt, but if a civil case was bought and found against him on the basis of balance of probability there would have been damages. If they believe that (as the police seem to) why pay compensation?
The flaw to this is:
a) If he had been tried properly in the first place he probably wouldn't have gone to jail so none of this would have happened
b) How do we know that he would have lost on the balance of probability?
My interpretation of the logic behind this may of course all be tosh.
Despite being a civil claim for compensation from the state, the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person is innocent.
As other commenters have stated, that effectively means that is insufficient to show that you were fitted up for the crime (i.e. that the evidence against you is flawed).
The only saving grace is just how difficult to apply a test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is in these circumstances when trying to prove a negative. I can only suggest that the test actually applied is the balance of probabilities, i.e. that the judge is satisfied that it is more likely than not that you did not commit the crime.
It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing
The one candidate that could help Sanders is Bloomberg, who is somewhere between the top tier and the no hopers in the polling - he could take votes from Biden without delivering proportionately enough delegates (To himself) to make up for the delegates lost from Biden that would otherwise be delivered from the votes Bloomberg has snaffled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-51088499
It seems there was clear evidence the confession was falsified.
https://twitter.com/AlunDaviesMS/status/1216455114426327040
It would be wholly appropriate to treat compensation as a matter for the civil courts and invite each side to explain why, on the balance of probabilities, he did or did not do it - and therefore whether he was 'correctly' (though procedurally wrongly) imprisoned or wrongly (and wrongly) imprisoned.
However we now ask the victim to demonstrate a higher - and therefore symmetric - standard of innocence. As described in my other post I am not even sure what this test is supposed to *mean*, because the victim is being asked to prove a negative.
We of course should not live in a society where the police can do that, as they did quite a bit around the 70s as we know. if you are dealing with someone's freedom it needs to up to an unbiased jury to decide on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt even if it does mean a villain may go free.
If anybody who thinks this is bollox (as of course it probably is) is interested in laying me via Betfair - £10 on Pidcock to be next PM at a price to be agreed - please let do me know.
Another logical argument could be to put him back into the position of a) in my post.That is regardless he would not have been found guilty in the original trial if the evidence had not been falsified and therefore he should be fully compensated as he would not have been imprisoned.
Given his lead in Iowa, California and in some New Hampshire polls Sanders looks the likely nominee at present
The fragrant Rosena is/would be utterly lovely.
Well, anyway, she lost her seat. Maybe if and when she returns, she'll have moved on from that.
The failures of institutions from the police to the NHS to banks to give proper apologies when they cock things up is yet another thing to make one depressed at the state of our society.
Just be glad she's a footnote now.
PLEASE NOMINATE BURGON
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/sanders-progressives-flock-warren-098065
"The editorial board, which is separate from the publication’s newsroom, is making its candidate interviews public this year. It will endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination on Jan. 19."
They need some on the London fringe (e.g. Thurrock, majority, er, 11,000) and a few like Ipswich (maj 5,479).
However the number of seats where Labour is no longer even competitive is perhaps a greater sign of the lack of a voting constituency that would see them win a majority elsewhere.
Dawn butler would make a good deputy.