Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
I don't find it hard.
Now I may be being cynical here but people seem to find it easier to be morally righteous when its one of 'their side' rather than one of 'our side'
Morning all, for those unaware of the different system, in Scotland we have 15 "man" juries and we don't go in for majority votes. The jury can lose up to 3 jurors before a trial has to be abandoned and a conviction just needs an 8/7 vote.
In addition the accused person in Scotland has no say in what form the trial will take, other than the most serious offences, it is entirely within the discretion of a Procurator Fiscal to decide whether to prosecute a case before a Justice of the Peace (not legally qualified but with a solicitor as clerk who advises him/her on the law), a Sheriff ( normally experienced solicitor or advocate [barrister] who has become a part-time or full-time judge) who can deal with the case with or without a jury or the High Court where there is almost always a jury except in e.g. the Lockerbie Trial where a bench of High Court judges can sit instead of a single judge with a jury.
Don't know anything about Scots law but if I were serving 30 years for murder when 7 out of 15 people thought I was not guilty I wouldn't feel great about it.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
Are you sure you weren't an extra on Crown Court?
What a prog that was. No frills, authentic, compelling. And all in half an hour.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Curiously, Hanratty was both wrongly convicted, and also guilty of the murder.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
We are only seven months into this government. Things are only just getting started. The attacks on our democracy, the lies and the corruption are only going to accelerate from here. They think they are untouchable.
Are you talking about the current government or Blair's government ?
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
The fish rots from the head.
Think I'll go with this sort of gnomic wisdom for a while. No need to rabbit on.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Curiously, Hanratty was both wrongly convicted, and also guilty of the murder.
Definitely wrongly convicted. Probably didn't do the murder but impossible to be sure. And yes, I do know about the DNA thing.
I really don't get the big deal about this Jenrick thing. Surely approving housing developments has been policy by all parties for years now.
In London too for people to be whining I don't understand it. Has the housing crisis in London dissipated? Do Londoners not need more homes?
Stuff NIMBYs and the permanently outraged this is why nothing gets done in this country FFS.
People need homes to live in, here's a developer wanting to build homes. JFDI.
None of the above negates the fact that this "looks" like good old fashioned corruption. And if it looks like corruption etc.
Only if an alternative development was being denied approval and if so I'd think that would have been said by now. An outraged developer demanding to know why Jenrick is holding his development up.
The country needs more houses. The government was elected on a manifesto saying they'd get more built - then when they follow through on that it gets called corruption.
What a joke. It's farcical. No wonder nothing gets done.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
I would not have thought so either. Although this can happen with witnesses for a wedding and it's not so far from that.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
You may well be right about the need for housing. Your problem isn't that issue, it is justifying an exchange of cash for a favour.
I really don't get the big deal about this Jenrick thing. Surely approving housing developments has been policy by all parties for years now.
In London too for people to be whining I don't understand it. Has the housing crisis in London dissipated? Do Londoners not need more homes?
Stuff NIMBYs and the permanently outraged this is why nothing gets done in this country FFS.
People need homes to live in, here's a developer wanting to build homes. JFDI.
None of the above negates the fact that this "looks" like good old fashioned corruption. And if it looks like corruption etc.
Only if an alternative development was being denied approval and if so I'd think that would have been said by now. An outraged developer demanding to know why Jenrick is holding his development up.
The country needs more houses. The government was elected on a manifesto saying they'd get more built - then when they follow through on that it gets called corruption.
What a joke. It's farcical. No wonder nothing gets done.
One of the favours that Desmond "negotiated" was to substantially to reduce the amount of social housing, and also reduce the amount going to support local infra structure. It was not about providing housing, it was about trousering profits.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
Not at Tory fundraisers though! If I made a list of odd looking planning decisions it would definitely be a lot longer than the official "Donnygate" one...
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
Any government minister considering putting a tax or restrictions on investment banks might think "if we do that then there's no chance of getting money from them after I leave office" and so have their decision affected by their personal greed.
Likewise for decisions involving different sectors of the economy.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
That's not what the complaints are about. No-one, AFAIK, is opposing affordable houses in places where there is work for the people who live in the area. AIUI, the complaints are that the Minister used his position to help a friend or associate a) avoid a considerable amount of tax and b) that the development proposed would bring new people into an area already sadly short of facilities.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
Thanks for the header. Cyclefree pieces normally leave me somewhat depressed about the legal system, so it's nice to read there are some positive bits in there.
The point about the Lammy Review and BAME discrimination is fascinating and to me initially counterintuitive.
I have never served on a jury, but like others, would rather like the experience one day, provided it wasn't on anything too grisly and horrible.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
The issue is that the plans should have x% social housing in it. Jenricks by pushing things through on the day he did reduced the amount of social housing required so significantly increasing the profits of the scheme while reducing the amount of help the scheme would have given the local council in providing social housing.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
I don't find it hard.
Now I may be being cynical here but people seem to find it easier to be morally righteous when its one of 'their side' rather than one of 'our side'
Well I don't. What can I say.
If the default response to bad behaviour is just to search the archives for other bad behaviour - either for partisan defence reasons or to demonstrate one's 'man of the world' seasoned cynicism - the result is that bad behaviour becomes the accepted norm.
Righteous anger fuels benign change. Lazy cynicism fuels moral turpitude.
Thanks for the header. Cyclefree pieces normally leave me somewhat depressed about the legal system, so it's nice to read there are some positive bits in there.
The point about the Lammy Review and BAME discrimination is fascinating and to me initially counterintuitive.
I have never served on a jury, but like others, would rather like the experience one day, provided it wasn't on anything too grisly and horrible.
Boring is infinitely more likely than grisly and horrible.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
You may well be right about the need for housing. Your problem isn't that issue, it is justifying an exchange of cash for a favour.
It's only a favour if it isn't what was going to be done otherwise. Are alternative proposals being held up or rejected?
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
The thing is, "they didn't actually break any law, so jog on" has an internal logic. I'm willing to believe that there is no written law that RJ broke, because nobody would imagine that it would be necessary to have a law saying "ministers shouldn't socialise with or take money from people they have a quasi-judicial role for". Everyone just knows that you don't do it. For most people, their moral compass would tell them not to do it, and to resign if their moral compass breaks down.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
You and @SeanT should be nicknamed The Ice Twins...
What's the point claiming that while remaining anonymous? You could claim to have gone the moon too - why should anyone believe you? It doesn't make your opinion right or wrong.
I think that probably was aimed at someone other than me. But if it was aimed at me, I should tell you that the moon sucks. You can't get a decent cheese for love nor money and there isn't any nice forested area to cycle through. Not worth the effort.
Have a good morning.
It was aimed at mysticrose. I stuffed up the quote.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
That's not what the complaints are about. No-one, AFAIK, is opposing affordable houses in places where there is work for the people who live in the area. AIUI, the complaints are that the Minister used his position to help a friend or associate a) avoid a considerable amount of tax and b) that the development proposed would bring new people into an area already sadly short of facilities.
A I couldn't care less about. Businesses are trying to make a profit, what a shocker! Tomorrow's breaking news the sun rises in the East. If the business doesn't make a profit then it doesn't build the houses and people whinge why isn't the government honouring it's manifesto commitment to get more built.
B is pure NIMBYism and I have no time or respect for that.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
And it seems to be the product of a vivid imagination by the Met and Amnesty :-) .
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
I don't find it hard.
Now I may be being cynical here but people seem to find it easier to be morally righteous when its one of 'their side' rather than one of 'our side'
Well I don't. What can I say.
If the default response to bad behaviour is just to search the archives for other bad behaviour - either for partisan defence reasons or to demonstrate one's 'man of the world' seasoned cynicism - the result is that bad behaviour becomes the accepted norm.
Righteous anger fuels benign change. Lazy cynicism fuels moral turpitude.
My righteous anger reserves need recharging, they've had a lot of use over the years.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correctly.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
Surely the logic of your experience that some jurors are inadequate is that you need a larger body, to maximise the chance of getting at least a few who are able to do the job properly and swing the others?
Of the 'bad' jury I was on, I would say that two, maybe three at a push were up to the task. So how many would you need to guarantee 'a few' decent ones? One problem the couple of us who were trying to do our duty had was that the other jurors were chatting away in small and nosiy groups, occasionally glancing at the watches and complaining that they wanted to get away quick.
How does more jurors solve that problem?
Snaresbrook is quite unique, juries there were/are very reluctant to convict on certain crimes. My father always knew if a case ended up at snaresbrook likely as not they would get off no matter what the evidence...
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
That's not what the complaints are about. No-one, AFAIK, is opposing affordable houses in places where there is work for the people who live in the area. AIUI, the complaints are that the Minister used his position to help a friend or associate a) avoid a considerable amount of tax and b) that the development proposed would bring new people into an area already sadly short of facilities.
A I couldn't care less about. Businesses are trying to make a profit, what a shocker! Tomorrow's breaking news the sun rises in the East. If the business doesn't make a profit then it doesn't build the houses and people whinge why isn't the government honouring it's manifesto commitment to get more built.
B is pure NIMBYism and I have no time or respect for that.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
I would not have thought so either. Although this can happen with witnesses for a wedding and it's not so far from that.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
I am not suitable to serve, in other words.
I thought of doing a reverse Fonda. I was the ony guilty verdict and wondered if I could turn the other 11 around but it was a trivial case and I decided not to bother.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correctly.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
Surely the logic of your experience that some jurors are inadequate is that you need a larger body, to maximise the chance of getting at least a few who are able to do the job properly and swing the others?
Of the 'bad' jury I was on, I would say that two, maybe three at a push were up to the task. So how many would you need to guarantee 'a few' decent ones? One problem the couple of us who were trying to do our duty had was that the other jurors were chatting away in small and nosiy groups, occasionally glancing at the watches and complaining that they wanted to get away quick.
How does more jurors solve that problem?
Snaresbrook is quite unique, juries there were/are very reluctant to convict on certain crimes. My father always knew if a case ended up at snaresbrook likely as not they would get off no matter what the evidence...
All us ex-criminals from the East End packing the jury boxes!
Your Dad would have been proud of us though when we sent down the counterfeiter. Even the copper in charge of the case was surprised.
How's that People vs Elite thing working out for y'all?
Well if I want access to any of my Councillors I go to their surgery and argue a case. Certainly cheaper in time and treasure than 12k or being a Trade Union Official.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
Supporter of Jeremy Corbyn attacks Israelis. Of course, Mr Corbyn and his friends were/are not really anti_Semites. It is always Israel that is used as an example of brutality by them. Left wing regimes can do what they want. And the quasi-fascist regime of Putin - an odd silence. Fecking hypocrites. I might loathe Johnson and his extreme thicko Brexit backers, but I really do hate the hypocritical left of Jeremy Corbyn
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
It's wholly different. If an investment bank feels it wants to pay Blair or Osborne for their services when out of office, I say more fool the bankers. When a property developer gifts a political party a donation after a member of government has gone out of his way to save the donor £45m that is quite probably illegal.
It showed that if a government 'plays nicely' with international finance that there can be big rewards for ministers after they leave office.
If you have evidence to prove your point beyond doubt, you are right and it is corruption.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
The evidence that getting more houses built was in the Tory manifesto is there for all to see too but nobody cares about that.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
That's not what the complaints are about. No-one, AFAIK, is opposing affordable houses in places where there is work for the people who live in the area. AIUI, the complaints are that the Minister used his position to help a friend or associate a) avoid a considerable amount of tax and b) that the development proposed would bring new people into an area already sadly short of facilities.
A I couldn't care less about. Businesses are trying to make a profit, what a shocker! Tomorrow's breaking news the sun rises in the East. If the business doesn't make a profit then it doesn't build the houses and people whinge why isn't the government honouring it's manifesto commitment to get more built.
B is pure NIMBYism and I have no time or respect for that.
No change here then.......
Absolutely no change. I've always despised NIMBYism and supported construction. I've always had a JFDI principle and thought are planning system is farcical.
If I normally was a NIMBY fan then opposing it here would be hypocrisy. But I've stuck to my principles just as I did on page one of this thread when I criticised vehemently the governments judicial proposals.
The country needs more homes. JFDI and build them!
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
I have been involved in many jury trials, mainly for the Crown. I would say that in the High Court I have never had a jury decision that did not strike me as reasonable and arguably correct, certainly not daft or can't be bothered.
In the Sheriff Court, for less serious matters, it is a bit more problematic and the Jury does not seem to take it as seriously. I am not a great fan of prancing about with horse hair on my head and antiquated clothing but it does seem to help bring home to the Jury that this is important.
I remember one case where someone had been cut to pieces and murdered in front of his wife for the very serious offence of visiting Upper Blantyre when he lived in lower Blantyre. A very well known QC had a real go at the widow accusing her late husband of having started it. The jury in that court were right behind me (no social distancing then) and I could hear them hissing with anger at the way the widow was being treated. The second QC was much gentler and polite. At the end of the trial the jury found the client of the first guilty of murder and the second of culpable homicide (manslaughter) to bring home their disapproval of the way the first QC had behaved.
So if Robert Jenrick hadn't (unlawfully? illegally?) fast-tracked this decision, the taxpayer would be 45m+ quid better off?
Or to put it another way, Jenrick has more than undone all the work of Captain Tom in raising money?
Not quite it's £40m but yes...
Not just that.
If Jenrick had not approved the 1500 dwellings would not have been built for another 5-10 years, as is now going to happen. As the scheme would not have been viable, and TH had rejected it anyway.
Pros and cons.
Back to the drawing board for Desmond. Back of the political queue for Jenrick.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
I would not have thought so either. Although this can happen with witnesses for a wedding and it's not so far from that.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
I am not suitable to serve, in other words.
I thought of doing a reverse Fonda. I was the ony guilty verdict and wondered if I could turn the other 11 around but it was a trivial case and I decided not to bother.
Really? You were 1 against 11? Gosh. That is uncomfortable.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
The thing is, "they didn't actually break any law, so jog on" has an internal logic. I'm willing to believe that there is no written law that RJ broke, because nobody would imagine that it would be necessary to have a law saying "ministers shouldn't socialise with or take money from people they have a quasi-judicial role for". Everyone just knows that you don't do it. For most people, their moral compass would tell them not to do it, and to resign if their moral compass breaks down.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
It's a good point.
I used to be a soccer referee. No way would I take a game where I had any association with the clubs or individual players. There may be an FA rule about it written down somewhere but who needs it? You just don't need to be told why it would be wrong.
RJ is a tosser. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground.
So if Robert Jenrick hadn't (unlawfully? illegally?) fast-tracked this decision, the taxpayer would be 45m+ quid better off?
Or to put it another way, Jenrick has more than undone all the work of Captain Tom in raising money?
Not quite it's £40m but yes...
Not just that.
If Jenrick had not approved the 1500 dwellings would not have been built for another 5-10 years, as is now going to happen. As the scheme would not have been viable, and TH had rejected it anyway.
Pros and cons.
Back to the drawing board for Desmond.
So Jenrick would have enabled 1500 families to get a home?
TH should be ashamed of themselves but instead of TH being attacked for NIMBYism people are attacking the only person to do the right thing.
Brexiters would rather we were a supplicant state in the US Empire than be an equal partner (yes we were you tw*ts!) in the EU. They are always quiet about our "sovereignty" with respect to having US military bases on our soil. Perhaps they kid themselves that Americans like us, or even more deludedly they think Donald Trump respects us !!
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
The thing is, "they didn't actually break any law, so jog on" has an internal logic. I'm willing to believe that there is no written law that RJ broke, because nobody would imagine that it would be necessary to have a law saying "ministers shouldn't socialise with or take money from people they have a quasi-judicial role for". Everyone just knows that you don't do it. For most people, their moral compass would tell them not to do it, and to resign if their moral compass breaks down.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
It's a good point.
I used to be a soccer referee. No way would I take a game where I had any association with the clubs or individual players. There may be an FA rule about it written down somewhere but who needs it? You just don't need to be told why it would be wrong.
RJ is a tosser. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground.
If they go for him, Misconduct in Public Office should fit the bill.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
Is there nothing in it then, this "learnt from Mossad" business? I know there's much fevered nonsense around this topic but what about this specific claim?
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
The thing is, "they didn't actually break any law, so jog on" has an internal logic. I'm willing to believe that there is no written law that RJ broke, because nobody would imagine that it would be necessary to have a law saying "ministers shouldn't socialise with or take money from people they have a quasi-judicial role for". Everyone just knows that you don't do it. For most people, their moral compass would tell them not to do it, and to resign if their moral compass breaks down.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
It's a good point.
I used to be a soccer referee. No way would I take a game where I had any association with the clubs or individual players. There may be an FA rule about it written down somewhere but who needs it? You just don't need to be told why it would be wrong.
RJ is a tosser. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground.
If they go for him, Misconduct in Public Office should fit the bill.
Leaving aside the propriety issue, communicating with Desmond in a way that could be FOI'd is monumentally stupid.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
I have been involved in many jury trials, mainly for the Crown. I would say that in the High Court I have never had a jury decision that did not strike me as reasonable and arguably correct, certainly not daft or can't be bothered.
In the Sheriff Court, for less serious matters, it is a bit more problematic and the Jury does not seem to take it as seriously. I am not a great fan of prancing about with horse hair on my head and antiquated clothing but it does seem to help bring home to the Jury that this is important.
I remember one case where someone had been cut to pieces and murdered in front of his wife for the very serious offence of visiting Upper Blantyre when he lived in lower Blantyre. A very well known QC had a real go at the widow accusing her late husband of having started it. The jury in that court were right behind me (no social distancing then) and I could hear them hissing with anger at the way the widow was being treated. The second QC was much gentler and polite. At the end of the trial the jury found the client of the first guilty of murder and the second of culpable homicide (manslaughter) to bring home their disapproval of the way the first QC had behaved.
That raises a whole new can of worms ... punishing the accused because the lawyer is an a-hole.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
The thing is, "they didn't actually break any law, so jog on" has an internal logic. I'm willing to believe that there is no written law that RJ broke, because nobody would imagine that it would be necessary to have a law saying "ministers shouldn't socialise with or take money from people they have a quasi-judicial role for". Everyone just knows that you don't do it. For most people, their moral compass would tell them not to do it, and to resign if their moral compass breaks down.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
It's a good point.
I used to be a soccer referee. No way would I take a game where I had any association with the clubs or individual players. There may be an FA rule about it written down somewhere but who needs it? You just don't need to be told why it would be wrong.
RJ is a tosser. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground.
It seemed to me that the only possible defence was that he was not aware that matter was on his desk when he spoke to Desmond at the dinner and sent the text about meeting up and then was aware when he sent the second text saying that wasn't a good idea. That, unfortunately, is not what he is saying. In which case he is indeed a tosser with absolutely no idea of how to exercise his quasi judicial role and he should have been sacked.
At least once BLM have defunded the police they won't have such expensive vehicles to smash up or as many officers to put in hospital. Why were the killjoys even there?
Having served on a couple of juries, I've no time at all for the system, though I admit it is superior to the trial by ordeal it replaced in the early 13th century. One of the other jurors, I'm pretty sure, made his decision because he didn't want to be away from the office any more. Others may well have had similar motivations. And there was an unhealthy atmosphere of peer pressure. As somebody once said, when you hear why jurors make the decisions they make, the idea of facing a jury of your peers is terrifying.
I'd favour some form of professional juror panels, with a secret ballot replacing deliberations.
Peer pressure is definitely a factor. It certainly played a part in the blatantly wrong verdict I was a party to. Fortunately it was a trivial case, so probably little harm done.
So if Robert Jenrick hadn't (unlawfully? illegally?) fast-tracked this decision, the taxpayer would be 45m+ quid better off?
Or to put it another way, Jenrick has more than undone all the work of Captain Tom in raising money?
Not quite it's £40m but yes...
Not just that.
If Jenrick had not approved the 1500 dwellings would not have been built for another 5-10 years, as is now going to happen. As the scheme would not have been viable, and TH had rejected it anyway.
Pros and cons.
Back to the drawing board for Desmond.
So Jenrick would have enabled 1500 families to get a home?
TH should be ashamed of themselves but instead of TH being attacked for NIMBYism people are attacking the only person to do the right thing.
The merits of the decision are really irrelevant. What is important is the fairness of the process which Jenrick has acknowledged to some extent by quashing his own decision. But he should either have not spoken to Desmond or not touched it. It's not complicated.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Interesting. My hunch was around 20% - i.e. quite high. And I guess when they are surprised it is usually by the verdict being Not Guilty when they would have voted Guilty if they themselves were on the jury. Not a researchable thing for obvious reasons.
Obviously, though on my straw poll you would be wrong. Two of the three 'surprises' were Guilty when the judge thought otherwise.
The whole Jenrick/Desmond episode leaves a very bad smell behind. The whole party donor thing is dodgy AF. These hard nosed capitalists don't generally hand over money without expecting something in return in terms of access. But the thing about it I found most shocking was the fact that Desmond doesn't know the difference between "doe" and "dough". Prominent people in this country are just all so bloody thick. I mean I know Desmond provides masturbatory aids for a living and so maybe doesn't need to be the sharpest tool in the box, but it's still pretty devpressing.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
I have been involved in many jury trials, mainly for the Crown. I would say that in the High Court I have never had a jury decision that did not strike me as reasonable and arguably correct, certainly not daft or can't be bothered.
In the Sheriff Court, for less serious matters, it is a bit more problematic and the Jury does not seem to take it as seriously. I am not a great fan of prancing about with horse hair on my head and antiquated clothing but it does seem to help bring home to the Jury that this is important.
I remember one case where someone had been cut to pieces and murdered in front of his wife for the very serious offence of visiting Upper Blantyre when he lived in lower Blantyre. A very well known QC had a real go at the widow accusing her late husband of having started it. The jury in that court were right behind me (no social distancing then) and I could hear them hissing with anger at the way the widow was being treated. The second QC was much gentler and polite. At the end of the trial the jury found the client of the first guilty of murder and the second of culpable homicide (manslaughter) to bring home their disapproval of the way the first QC had behaved.
That raises a whole new can of worms ... punishing the accused because the lawyer is an a-hole.
Its exceptional, which is why it sticks in my mind. And it is highly probable that the lawyer was acting on his client's instructions on taking that line. It made little difference on sentence, something like a year on the punishment part of the sentence with both men getting life IIRC.
The merits of the decision are really irrelevant. What is important is the fairness of the process which Jenrick has acknowledged to some extent by quashing his own decision. But he should either have not spoken to Desmond or not touched it. It's not complicated.
Precisely. And in addition, for reasons both of integrity and of political realism, he should have resigned at the start.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
And it seems to be the product of a vivid imagination by the Met and Amnesty :-)
I wasn't aware that Maxine Peake was "venerated".
She is a respected thespian but I would not say venerated. She's no "Judy" or "Helen" or "Maggie".
As an aside, this well supports what I was getting at the other day with my "tee shirt" test. Peake is as far left as Tommy Robinson is far right. But there is not an equivalence. If a thousand Tommys are marching with the Football Lads and a thousand Maxines are marching against them, it would be wrong to say they were "as bad as each other." I think we all know this really.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
And it seems to be the product of a vivid imagination by the Met and Amnesty :-)
I wasn't aware that Maxine Peake was "venerated".
She is a respected thespian but I would not say venerated. She's no "Judy" or "Helen" or "Maggie".
As an aside, this well supports what I was getting at the other day with my "tee shirt" test. Peake is as far left as Tommy Robinson is far right. But there is not an equivalence. If a thousand Tommys are marching with the Football Lads and a thousand Maxines are marching against them, it would be wrong to say they were "as bad as each other." I think we all know this really.
At various times a certain multi identity PB personality has attempted to justify Tommy Robinson. I'm pretty sure he/they would have a good shot at why a thousand TRs are actually better than a thousand MPs.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
I would not have thought so either. Although this can happen with witnesses for a wedding and it's not so far from that.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
I am not suitable to serve, in other words.
I thought of doing a reverse Fonda. I was the ony guilty verdict and wondered if I could turn the other 11 around but it was a trivial case and I decided not to bother.
Really? You were 1 against 11? Gosh. That is uncomfortable.
I was right too. Judge more or less told us the verdict was wrong. It gave me some satisfaction although I sometimes think I should have fought my corner more. It was a minor case though, and I'm pretty sure all that would have happened is that after a few hours inconclusive wrangling the judge would have taken a majority verdict, and the defendant would still have got off.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
And it seems to be the product of a vivid imagination by the Met and Amnesty :-)
I wasn't aware that Maxine Peake was "venerated".
She is a respected thespian but I would not say venerated. She's no "Judy" or "Helen" or "Maggie".
As an aside, this well supports what I was getting at the other day with my "tee shirt" test. Peake is as far left as Tommy Robinson is far right. But there is not an equivalence. If a thousand Tommys are marching with the Football Lads and a thousand Maxines are marching against them, it would be wrong to say they were "as bad as each other." I think we all know this really.
At various times a certain multi identity PB personality has attempted to justify Tommy Robinson. I'm pretty sure he/they would have a good shot at why a thousand TRs are actually better than a thousand MPs.
offered as further evidence that kinabalu is right?
Donald Trump's brother Robert has sought an order banning her from providing any person with any "descriptions or accounts" of her "relationship" with him, his sister Maryanne, or their brother Donald.
Yet it seems the only matter she agreed in the 2001 NDA to keep shtum about was the probate litigation concerning Fred Trump's estate, ended by settlement.
So if Robert Jenrick hadn't (unlawfully? illegally?) fast-tracked this decision, the taxpayer would be 45m+ quid better off?
Or to put it another way, Jenrick has more than undone all the work of Captain Tom in raising money?
Not quite it's £40m but yes...
Not just that.
If Jenrick had not approved the 1500 dwellings would not have been built for another 5-10 years, as is now going to happen. As the scheme would not have been viable, and TH had rejected it anyway.
Pros and cons.
Back to the drawing board for Desmond.
So Jenrick would have enabled 1500 families to get a home?
TH should be ashamed of themselves but instead of TH being attacked for NIMBYism people are attacking the only person to do the right thing.
Once you start arguing that the ends justify the means you are on a slippery slope.
We either have laws and procedures that everyone is required to follow or you have laws and procedures that the powerful and wealthy can ignore when it suits them.
We have had two very well publicised cases (Cummings & Jenrick) during Johnson's first 6 months of office and the message seems clear, as far as this government is concerned the rules don't apply if your face fits.
I don't think the public care, they assume all politicians are corrupt and in it for themselves.
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
Is there nothing in it then, this "learnt from Mossad" business? I know there's much fevered nonsense around this topic but what about this specific claim?
Well, nothing but some pretty deep rooted anti-Semitism. But that's normal for people of that view, isn't it?
It's interesting how the "Israeli's do it" excuse winds its way through public discourse.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
And it seems to be the product of a vivid imagination by the Met and Amnesty :-)
I wasn't aware that Maxine Peake was "venerated".
She is a respected thespian but I would not say venerated. She's no "Judy" or "Helen" or "Maggie".
As an aside, this well supports what I was getting at the other day with my "tee shirt" test. Peake is as far left as Tommy Robinson is far right. But there is not an equivalence. If a thousand Tommys are marching with the Football Lads and a thousand Maxines are marching against them, it would be wrong to say they were "as bad as each other." I think we all know this really.
At various times a certain multi identity PB personality has attempted to justify Tommy Robinson. I'm pretty sure he/they would have a good shot at why a thousand TRs are actually better than a thousand MPs.
offered as further evidence that kinabalu is right?
I can well believe there are downsides to trial by jury. But I think they would be eclipsed by the downsides of the alternatives.
What is wrong with Show Trials? They are very popular in some parts of the world and help speed up the legal process too. No months and months spent educating a Jury....
Of course, over in Northern Ireland they abolished juries for some decades, but I have not seen any mention of it on here and @Cyclefree did not bring it up.
The whole Jenrick/Desmond episode leaves a very bad smell behind. The whole party donor thing is dodgy AF. These hard nosed capitalists don't generally hand over money without expecting something in return in terms of access. But the thing about it I found most shocking was the fact that Desmond doesn't know the difference between "doe" and "dough". Prominent people in this country are just all so bloody thick. I mean I know Desmond provides masturbatory aids for a living and so maybe doesn't need to be the sharpest tool in the box, but it's still pretty devpressing.
A bad smell indeed, OLB, but the Coronavrus seems to have caused some to have lost their sense of smell entirely.
Comments
In London too for people to be whining I don't understand it. Has the housing crisis in London dissipated? Do Londoners not need more homes?
Stuff NIMBYs and the permanently outraged this is why nothing gets done in this country FFS.
People need homes to live in, here's a developer wanting to build homes. JFDI.
Plus ca change ...
Think I'll go with this sort of gnomic wisdom for a while. No need to rabbit on.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1276048393798930433?s=20
The country needs more houses. The government was elected on a manifesto saying they'd get more built - then when they follow through on that it gets called corruption.
What a joke. It's farcical. No wonder nothing gets done.
I am not sure you have enough to build a case against Osborne. The evidence against Jenrick is there for all to see. That is not to say you might not feel, saving Desmond £45m in taxes is problematic.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
I am not suitable to serve, in other words.
Funny kind of corruption to literally write into your manifesto what you're going to do next. 🙄
Likewise for decisions involving different sectors of the economy.
https://twitter.com/taysuperior/status/1275970049182969859?s=21
AIUI, the complaints are that the Minister used his position to help a friend or associate a) avoid a considerable amount of tax and b) that the development proposed would bring new people into an area already sadly short of facilities.
After De Mendes was shot - the police claimed "Israeli's do it like that". The Israelis pointed out that if they shot every suspected suicide bomber, they wouldn't have such a large collection of attempted suicide bombers in prison.
The point about the Lammy Review and BAME discrimination is fascinating and to me initially counterintuitive.
I have never served on a jury, but like others, would rather like the experience one day, provided it wasn't on anything too grisly and horrible.
https://home.bhr.co.uk/cardiochek-st-blood-analyser
I know little about these, however.
@Foxy ?
If the default response to bad behaviour is just to search the archives for other bad behaviour - either for partisan defence reasons or to demonstrate one's 'man of the world' seasoned cynicism - the result is that bad behaviour becomes the accepted norm.
Righteous anger fuels benign change. Lazy cynicism fuels moral turpitude.
If so I'd criticise THAT.
The approach this government is taking reminds me of a certain kind of bright but truculent teenager. The sort who can say "you said I had to hand the homework sheet in, you said NOTHING about answering the questions first" with a straight but clearly outraged face. Most people grow out of it before the age of 16.
Government by gang-omerta looks strong right up to the moment it collapses. Then it could get ugly pretty fast.
B is pure NIMBYism and I have no time or respect for that.
I wasn't aware that Maxine Peake was "venerated".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfAdHBtK_Q
No change here then.......
Or to put it another way, Jenrick has more than undone all the work of Captain Tom in raising money?
Your Dad would have been proud of us though when we sent down the counterfeiter. Even the copper in charge of the case was surprised.
If I normally was a NIMBY fan then opposing it here would be hypocrisy. But I've stuck to my principles just as I did on page one of this thread when I criticised vehemently the governments judicial proposals.
The country needs more homes. JFDI and build them!
In the Sheriff Court, for less serious matters, it is a bit more problematic and the Jury does not seem to take it as seriously. I am not a great fan of prancing about with horse hair on my head and antiquated clothing but it does seem to help bring home to the Jury that this is important.
I remember one case where someone had been cut to pieces and murdered in front of his wife for the very serious offence of visiting Upper Blantyre when he lived in lower Blantyre. A very well known QC had a real go at the widow accusing her late husband of having started it. The jury in that court were right behind me (no social distancing then) and I could hear them hissing with anger at the way the widow was being treated. The second QC was much gentler and polite. At the end of the trial the jury found the client of the first guilty of murder and the second of culpable homicide (manslaughter) to bring home their disapproval of the way the first QC had behaved.
I'd rather see that tax abolished altogether.
If Jenrick had not approved the 1500 dwellings would not have been built for another 5-10 years, as is now going to happen. As the scheme would not have been viable, and TH had rejected it anyway.
Pros and cons.
Back to the drawing board for Desmond. Back of the political queue for Jenrick.
I used to be a soccer referee. No way would I take a game where I had any association with the clubs or individual players. There may be an FA rule about it written down somewhere but who needs it? You just don't need to be told why it would be wrong.
RJ is a tosser. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground.
As I understand it, the appointment for that post is a joint decision between the Home Sec and Mayor of London.
TH should be ashamed of themselves but instead of TH being attacked for NIMBYism people are attacking the only person to do the right thing.
https://twitter.com/MrKenShabby/status/1276083602783076352?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclondonnews/status/1276075349772771329?s=21
Chartered surveyor perhaps? Something in retail?
https://twitter.com/jojo24s_/status/1275977260856676357?s=21
Turns out kneeling before a mob doesn't necessarily entail respect for law and order, or those tasked with enforcing it.
But the thing about it I found most shocking was the fact that Desmond doesn't know the difference between "doe" and "dough". Prominent people in this country are just all so bloody thick. I mean I know Desmond provides masturbatory aids for a living and so maybe doesn't need to be the sharpest tool in the box, but it's still pretty devpressing.
As an aside, this well supports what I was getting at the other day with my "tee shirt" test. Peake is as far left as Tommy Robinson is far right. But there is not an equivalence. If a thousand Tommys are marching with the Football Lads and a thousand Maxines are marching against them, it would be wrong to say they were "as bad as each other." I think we all know this really.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/161554/lib-dems-move-to-scrap-section-60-stop-and-search/
The Daily Mail is hounding Mary Trump.
Donald Trump's brother Robert has sought an order banning her from providing any person with any "descriptions or accounts" of her "relationship" with him, his sister Maryanne, or their brother Donald.
Yet it seems the only matter she agreed in the 2001 NDA to keep shtum about was the probate litigation concerning Fred Trump's estate, ended by settlement.
We either have laws and procedures that everyone is required to follow or you have laws and procedures that the powerful and wealthy can ignore when it suits them.
We have had two very well publicised cases (Cummings & Jenrick) during Johnson's first 6 months of office and the message seems clear, as far as this government is concerned the rules don't apply if your face fits.
I don't think the public care, they assume all politicians are corrupt and in it for themselves.
https://twitter.com/1jmsho/status/1275960597419569155?s=21
Of course, over in Northern Ireland they abolished juries for some decades, but I have not seen any mention of it on here and @Cyclefree did not bring it up.
Diplock Courts anyone???