Royal Mail best not f*ck me today. My brand new girlfriend’s birthday present was sent through 1st class post and failed to arrive yesterday when it was supposed to. If it doesn’t come today I’m screwed!
Schoolboy error.
Never start going out with someone just before their birthday. Having to fork out on a present early in a relationship is a bit much.
This is why people ask 'What's your star sign?' - then walk away if they give the one just about to start!
Anyhow, I hope it turns up and you both have a great day.
The last of the true romantics! Perhaps you should have given David’s article more thought. Ultimately you can’t get something for nothing.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
Royal Mail best not f*ck me today. My brand new girlfriend’s birthday present was sent through 1st class post and failed to arrive yesterday when it was supposed to. If it doesn’t come today I’m screwed!
Schoolboy error.
Never start going out with someone just before their birthday. Having to fork out on a present early in a relationship is a bit much.
This is why people ask 'What's your star sign?' - then walk away if they give the one just about to start!
Anyhow, I hope it turns up and you both have a great day.
The last of the true romantics! Perhaps you should have given David’s article more thought. Ultimately you can’t get something for nothing.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
It brings no credit on our party
HYUFD, in his own quiet way, is more attracted to authoritarianism than was the late lamented SeanT.
the other media that I prefer in physical form to electronic is Guide books. This causes some argument with my wife who just looks things up on her phone as to where to go when on holiday wheras i just love getting out a Rough Guide or Lonely Planet in the middle of some old square in Europe and telling my bored family about the history of the square when they just want to go souvenir shopping or sit in a cafe
I used to do that with churches. Not religious but I love their architecture. After years of teasing I gave up but the teasing continues.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Retrospectively changing the law should NEVER be allowed. I know a couple of such changes have happened, but the whole idea stinks.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster.
I wouldn't say that's a factor in itself, because we had plenty of Tory governments for centuries without it leading to a surge in nationalism. But something changed in the 80's. Labour would blame the Conservative indifference to, or neglect of, Scotland in that decade, while the Conservatives would say it was Labour undermining the legitimacy of the Union. Or maybe it was the oil revenues.
I myself am fairly agnostic about Scottish independence, and would positively favour it if they took Northern Ireland with them, or if we could use it as an opportunity to give that place to the Republic. But I doubt we'd get that lucky.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
On topic I agree. One of the many great things on this site is the link to various on topic articles and papers which give a broader perspective. Many of these are behind paywalls but there is no single publication that I am willing to subscribe to, especially when so much is handed out for free. If I was being charged 10p for reading an article that seemed interesting (possibly with a daily cap of, say, £1.00 for a single publication) I would happily do so. The publication would gain, I would gain and more articles of that type would be written.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
It brings no credit on our party
HYUFD, in his own quiet way, is more attracted to authoritarianism than was the late lamented SeanT.
But he is not wrong. If Boris and Dom are so minded, they could get away with what HYUFD suggests.
USA Dem Veep nominee -- Karen Bass is into 11/2 on Betfair but you can get 7/1 from Ladbrokes, and possibly more with an odds boost. Ladbrokes is alone in the village in still quoting Bass at a longer price than Tammy Duckworth.
Yet Rice is at 4. This is just about her lowest for a month (briefly 3.9 last week).
Joe Biden's timetable was to have completed background checks this last week before moving on to speak personally with the remaining contenders before announcing his choice next month. There will no doubt be more in the American Sunday papers tomorrow about who remains in the frame.
Some information -- or is it mere speculation? -- about the background checks may have leaked into the betting market, as Michelle Lujan Grisham and Stacey Abrams moved markedly out on Betfair a couple of days back. Susan Rice was 20/1 last month, Karen Bass 20/1 as recently as last week.
I'm green on all the likely names but Harris. But my big payola will be Rice.
I will be getting a little tense in two or so weeks time.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
It brings no credit on our party
If you had actually read the original thread I was replying to TSE's argument that the government would be powerless if the killers of the policeman were given a suspended or light sentence, I was pointing out the Attorney General has powers to increase sentences and Parliament is ultimately sovereign not judges
Royal Mail best not f*ck me today. My brand new girlfriend’s birthday present was sent through 1st class post and failed to arrive yesterday when it was supposed to. If it doesn’t come today I’m screwed!
Schoolboy error.
Never start going out with someone just before their birthday. Having to fork out on a present early in a relationship is a bit much.
This is why people ask 'What's your star sign?' - then walk away if they give the one just about to start!
Anyhow, I hope it turns up and you both have a great day.
The last of the true romantics! Perhaps you should have given David’s article more thought. Ultimately you can’t get something for nothing.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
So May won more Scottish Tory MPs even than Thatcher in 1987 or Major in 1992
Germany: The increase in new confirmed infections of coronavirus in Germany has led to the start to speak of the fact that the "second wave" of the pandemic has already reached the country, as assured by the Prime Minister of the federal state of Saxony (this from Germany), Michael Kretschmer. "The second wave is already there. Every day we have new sources of infection that can lead to high numbers of infections," Kretschmer said in statements to the Rhenischer Post newspaper. In the last 24 hours, according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), reported 781 new infections. In the previous 24 hours the figure had been above 800 infections.
I subscribe to loads of magazines on Pocketmag - Classic Porsche, Car, EVO, Bike, Pro Cycling, MBUK, Classic & Sports Car and Classic Car Mart. Reading them on the iPad Pro is better than paper.
I don't need any news subscriptions because I just read all Scott's tweets on here.
Is the Taycan a classic Porsche?
It will be. Remember Porsche was an electric car company before it was ever an internal combustion car company...
Still too many doors.
Example: Skyline R33 GTR Coupe = £25,000 classic Skyline R33 GTR Sedan=The value of the drivetrain to make an R33 GTS Coupe into a £15000 GTR Coupe replica.
P.S. Way off topic!
The Autech 4 door R33 GTR conversions usually go for about double the price of 2 door R33 GTRs at auction in Japan. There were only about 400 made and I don't think I've seen one come up for years. There are probably a few in Aus/NZ. They are definitely more collectable and valuable than normal GTRs though.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Somewhat less dramatic when you point out that Blair had a 170-odd seat majority.
And the Tories also got wiped out in Wales. cf 2019 election result....
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Retrospectively changing the law should NEVER be allowed. I know a couple of such changes have happened, but the whole idea stinks.
Absolutely agreed.
Actually I’ve been thinking about it and have (slightly) changed my mind. If there is a law that everyone thought meant X, but the Supreme Court suddenly decides it means Y, then legislation to change it so that it always was what everyone thought it was might be justified. Other than that I can’t think of any justification: you should not be able to convict someone of something that was not that crime when they did it.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
It brings no credit on our party
If you had actually read the original thread I was replying to TSE's argument that the government would be powerless if the killers of the policeman were given a suspended or light sentence, I was pointing out the Attorney General has powers to increase sentences and Parliament is ultimately sovereign not judges
For setting the law not sentences. To change the law retrospectively goes fundamentally against British justice and nobody who cares about rights or history could possibly support it.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Looking at those numbers, it's not obvious that it's Mrs Thatcher, as she won as many seats in 1979 and 1983 as did Ted Heath, nor is it the Poll Tax, because the Conservatives won more seats in 1992 than in 1987, despite a lower share of the vote nationally.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
I subscribe to loads of magazines on Pocketmag - Classic Porsche, Car, EVO, Bike, Pro Cycling, MBUK, Classic & Sports Car and Classic Car Mart. Reading them on the iPad Pro is better than paper.
I don't need any news subscriptions because I just read all Scott's tweets on here.
Is the Taycan a classic Porsche?
It will be. Remember Porsche was an electric car company before it was ever an internal combustion car company...
Still too many doors.
Example: Skyline R33 GTR Coupe = £25,000 classic Skyline R33 GTR Sedan=The value of the drivetrain to make an R33 GTS Coupe into a £15000 GTR Coupe replica.
P.S. Way off topic!
The Autech 4 door R33 GTR conversions usually go for about double the price of 2 door R33 GTRs at auction in Japan. There were only about 400 made and I don't think I've seen one come up for years. There are probably a few in Aus/NZ. They are definitely more collectable and valuable than normal GTRs though.
People need to forget print, stop trying to make old models work on the internet and start again. The problem journalism has to solve is that breaking news and commentary are available for free everywhere. It’s the factual, thoughtful stuff that is in short supply.
And while theres a market for it, it isnt very large.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
So May won more Scottish Tory MPs even than Thatcher in 1987 or Major in 1992
... despite a lower number of Scottish seats. I think there were 72 in the 80s, which was reduced to 59 when devolution happened, though others may correct me on the exact totals.
I see little or no future for the print media to be honest as most everything is available on line or through the broadcast media. It is sad but we are living through change the like of which none of us could foresee or predict
Just seeing the dreadful pictures on Sky from Portland as near civil war erupts on the streets
The US is self destructing
Is it? It's a country with many problems, very polarised politics and an amount of civil strife at present. But I think we are in danger of overdoing it when presenting a gloomy picture. It's still big, rich and with one of the strongest senses of national identity there is.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
Really? It certainly is in Scotland. I find that remarkable.
Interesting to note that Spectator has had a bit of a boom in subscriptions recently.
I don't think anyone will pay for news nowadays. It will always turn up free pretty quickly after it breaks.
The Spectator is successful because it aggregates opinion and makes it available at a cost-effective price. It makes sure to have a range of writers, but there are some that it just could not do without.
The Times works because it does most things very well - it provides a range of opinion, has excellent business pages and the sports coverage is by far the best of any newspaper's. By contrast, the Telegraph and the Guardian feed their readers' prejudices, but don't do much else that well. Both have broken big and important stories - but, as I say, people won't pay for that.
Very well here. Scottish Borders mutton stew (mature sheep, not lamb) with homegrown turnips and potatoes. And plenty of Australian red. Half of it is our curry tomorrow.
That sounds good: is the recipe as obvious as it sounds or would I need to look it up?
FPT - @Fysics_Teacher - just traditional local food. Works with lamb as well, though it's less strong in flavour. Brown stewing or chump mutton, and simmer till the meat and veg are just right with shallots (better) or onions, carrots, white turnips, and garden peas and broad beans as available, and serve with new potatoes. Very much a summer treat. Edit: can use fresh herbs such as rosemary if wished, and mint for the potatoes.
Adapt veg in winter as needed - eg swap in swede for white turnip, and mashed old potatoes.
To avoid confusion - 'neeps' or turnip can refer to the large yellow swede (rutabaga iFrench). The white turnips I have in mind are these smaller ones which are globe shaped and white often with a purple flush on the dorsal surface of the root.
I suppose kohl-rabi would be a substitute for the white turnip.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
And does that seem like a good idea to you? Could does not mean should. Parliament has the theoretical power to do a lot of things that would hopefully be unconscionable, or at the very least not casually done in the name of party politics.
Felt like old times going to the dentist in the rain this morning. The no aerosols rule seems to differ somewhat between private and NHS patients, though I don't know how. Seems not to be clear whether those drying air puffs are included.
On the physical newspapers I miss the Telegraph's Sujiko puzzles and its absorbancy for dealing with water spillages and leaks.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
Quite so. There's been a fair amount of desire for mob justice here, including last night, with the odd plea for lynching. I'd prefer to assume the judge and jury did their job properly and had good reason for concluding manslaughter rather than murder. Nobody on here, or in the press, has all the details.
If people want to moan, why not wait and see what sentences are passed down? I'm fairly convinced that those found guilty of killing will face long custodial sentences. Then those that are not happy will come back and say "should have been for life!", of course.
I see little or no future for the print media to be honest as most everything is available on line or through the broadcast media. It is sad but we are living through change the like of which none of us could foresee or predict
Just seeing the dreadful pictures on Sky from Portland as near civil war erupts on the streets
The US is self destructing
Is it? It's a country with many problems, very polarised politics and an amount of civil strife at present. But I think we are in danger of overdoing it when presenting a gloomy picture. It's still big, rich and with one of the strongest senses of national identity there is.
As has been observed on here before, the US has fallen mightily. A sense of national identity is predficated on a series of shared bonds. The longer the US is polarised, the more fragile these bonds become. We're seeing something similar in the UK, of course - though it's far less violent, thankfully.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
If ever an image was going to make the Welsh Tourist Board put their head in theor hands.... Police blocking off the car-park, with a tow truck to add some oomph - and behind them, low cloud in a glowering sky!
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Retrospectively changing the law should NEVER be allowed. I know a couple of such changes have happened, but the whole idea stinks.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
And does that seem like a good idea to you? Could does not mean should. Parliament has the theoretical power to do a lot of things that would hopefully be unconscionable, or at the very least not casually done in the name of party politics.
I think HYUFD could be Johnson's conscience, which doesn't bode well.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
What this case makes me think is how hugely overrated juries are. They don't understand the law, and they are extremely vulnerable to intimidation (a vulnerability which is not compensated by giving them a bit of police protection during the actual trial, because you would actually need to protect 12 people and their nearest and dearest for ever after, and there aren't enough policemen for that). It's all very well to say fundamental right, Magna Carta, Penn's case etc etc but that is pure English exceptionalism. Most EU countries don't routinely have trial by jury and I am not worried that continental jails are full of the wrongly convicted as a result. Actually, I am much more convinced by the obverse case that the UK streets are full of the wrongly acquitted by thick and frightened juries.
And considering that we imprison more of ourselves per capita than anywhere in the EU, the trusty shield of British fair play looks embarrassingly ineffective anyway. So why make a shibboleth of its most outdated and ineffective aspect, instead of having trial by judges who know the law and can be effectively protected from intimidation?
"Like a gopher in the garden, the notion of newspapers charging for content online keeps popping its nose up out of the dirt. "
I think the question for David is obvious - what has changed, and what are the questions around an industry cartel on a platform, such that this will work?
We have newspaper models which work - specialist quality such as FT, Daily Mail and celebs, Independent (maybe) with good SEO and trolling Google, Times / Sunday Times, and it was only recently that the Graun was claiming success for their voluntary subscriptions.
We now have successful models for subscribing to individuals, whether self-owned platforms or Patreon. These work for distinctive voices (Laurie Penny for example makes £3k a month on Patreon; perhaps Douglas Murray could also do well).
We also have personal versions of the Mail. Many influencers - Look at meee! Look at my eyes! Look at my curls! Look at my bikini! - are really a self-controlled version of the Daily Mail bums 'n' boobs 'n' slebs 'n' affiliate model. Or a male / gay / whatever version of the same.
We also have people prominent in their subject area, but it needs 150k Youtube subs to do much income.
I haven't looked but I think there will be a plethora of micropayment platforms available.
I think the problem is still the same - news is free, and people are willing to write it for free, and newspapers do not add enough to justify their continued existence just from news.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
And does that seem like a good idea to you? Could does not mean should. Parliament has the theoretical power to do a lot of things that would hopefully be unconscionable, or at the very least not casually done in the name of party politics.
I think HYUFD could be Johnson's conscience, which doesn't bode well.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
What this case makes me think is how hugely overrated juries are. They don't understand the law, and they are extremely vulnerable to intimidation (a vulnerability which is not compensated by giving them a bit of police protection during the actual trial, because you would actually need to protect 12 people and their nearest and dearest for ever after, and there aren't enough policemen for that). It's all very well to say fundamental right, Magna Carta, Penn's case etc etc but that is pure English exceptionalism. Most EU countries don't routinely have trial by jury and I am not worried that continental jails are full of the wrongly convicted as a result. Actually, I am much more convinced by the obverse case that the UK streets are full of the wrongly acquitted by thick and frightened juries.
And considering that we imprison more of ourselves per capita than anywhere in the EU, the trusty shield of British fair play looks embarrassingly ineffective anyway. So why make a shibboleth of its most outdated and ineffective aspect, instead of having trial by judges who know the law and can be effectively protected from intimidation?
I think professional jurors would be better than judges. There is something to be said for having groups checking each other in such serious cases.
If ever an image was going to make the Welsh Tourist Board put their head in theor hands.... Police blocking off the car-park, with a tow truck to add some oomph - and behind them, low cloud in a glowering sky!
You probably do not know the area.
Last week 500 cars parked on PenyPass obstructing the service buses and access including mountain rescue and emergency services. 180 cars had fixed parking notices and the authorities decided that strict parking regulations would be enforced with tow trucks.
There is talk of the park introducing park and ride services to prevent the selfish and stupid spoiling it for the rest
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Your last paragraph shames you and more importantly that a conservative member could even spout such rubbish
It was factually accurate and Parliament has made laws retrospectively before on occasion even if in legal principle it should not it has the power to do so
Why do you even go down these obscure and frankly idiotic ideas
It brings no credit on our party
If you had actually read the original thread I was replying to TSE's argument that the government would be powerless if the killers of the policeman were given a suspended or light sentence, I was pointing out the Attorney General has powers to increase sentences and Parliament is ultimately sovereign not judges
For setting the law not sentences. To change the law retrospectively goes fundamentally against British justice and nobody who cares about rights or history could possibly support it.
Relatedly, I was reading The Secret Barrister last night which at the start quotes from the US Supreme Court that:
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
Our own country probably has similar quotes and definitely the same point. Our parliament can ultimately do what it wants but there are very good reasons they dont do that in almost all cases.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
What this case makes me think is how hugely overrated juries are. They don't understand the law, and they are extremely vulnerable to intimidation (a vulnerability which is not compensated by giving them a bit of police protection during the actual trial, because you would actually need to protect 12 people and their nearest and dearest for ever after, and there aren't enough policemen for that). It's all very well to say fundamental right, Magna Carta, Penn's case etc etc but that is pure English exceptionalism. Most EU countries don't routinely have trial by jury and I am not worried that continental jails are full of the wrongly convicted as a result. Actually, I am much more convinced by the obverse case that the UK streets are full of the wrongly acquitted by thick and frightened juries.
And considering that we imprison more of ourselves per capita than anywhere in the EU, the trusty shield of British fair play looks embarrassingly ineffective anyway. So why make a shibboleth of its most outdated and ineffective aspect, instead of having trial by judges who know the law and can be effectively protected from intimidation?
So juries wrongly acquit many criminals but we lock up more than anyone else? How can these both be true? And these boys haven’t been acquitted. They have been convicted of a serious charge which should result in some years in jail ( which is why the bail decision seems odd).
Very well here. Scottish Borders mutton stew (mature sheep, not lamb) with homegrown turnips and potatoes. And plenty of Australian red. Half of it is our curry tomorrow.
That sounds good: is the recipe as obvious as it sounds or would I need to look it up?
FPT - @Fysics_Teacher - just traditional local food. Works with lamb as well, though it's less strong in flavour. Brown stewing or chump mutton, and simmer till the meat and veg are just right with shallots (better) or onions, carrots, white turnips, and garden peas and broad beans as available, and serve with new potatoes. Very much a summer treat. Edit: can use fresh herbs such as rosemary if wished, and mint for the potatoes.
Adapt veg in winter as needed - eg swap in swede for white turnip, and mashed old potatoes.
To avoid confusion - 'neeps' or turnip can refer to the large yellow swede (rutabaga iFrench). The white turnips I have in mind are these smaller ones which are globe shaped and white often with a purple flush on the dorsal surface of the root.
I suppose kohl-rabi would be a substitute for the white turnip.
Thanks a lot for that: I’m going to have a go at making it. Just need to make a few changes to my next Ocado order...
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
HYUFD is, I am afraid, wrong. The AG can ask the Court of Appeal to review and increase sentence. He can't do it himself. The CA does have the power to increase sentence. Parliament cannot impose a sentence by amending the law retrospectively because (a) that is basically an Act of Attainder and an action typical of Nazi Germany or Gulag USSR, it's fantasy and (b) even if valid the Courts would over rule it.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Looking at those numbers, it's not obvious that it's Mrs Thatcher, as she won as many seats in 1979 and 1983 as did Ted Heath, nor is it the Poll Tax, because the Conservatives won more seats in 1992 than in 1987, despite a lower share of the vote nationally.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
In 1979, Mrs Thatcher could not have done anything to offend Scots voters. That should be self-evident. Labour was in office until then. Clearly something happened after 1983, or some things.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
Felt like old times going to the dentist in the rain this morning. The no aerosols rule seems to differ somewhat between private and NHS patients, though I don't know how. Seems not to be clear whether those drying air puffs are included.
On the physical newspapers I miss the Telegraph's Sujiko puzzles and its absorbancy for dealing with water spillages and leaks.
I lost a filling last week and my dentist renewed it using all the same procedures but in full ppe and indeed it was difficult to hear her
Strict appointment, handgel and mask, no one else in waiting room, one hour between appointments and while a bit strange, first class service
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
So May won more Scottish Tory MPs even than Thatcher in 1987 or Major in 1992
She didn't, and if you read the election literature pushed through letter boxes the Tories weren'tr even involved (except in the smallest print). What you have in mind was the Ruth Davidson and Chums say no to Independence Party. Big difference. And Ms D has moved on.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
But the jury did not acquit.
Yes, if - if- they get the maximum sentence then I'm sure any intimidators would be totally satisfied as it wadnt technically murder.
Very well here. Scottish Borders mutton stew (mature sheep, not lamb) with homegrown turnips and potatoes. And plenty of Australian red. Half of it is our curry tomorrow.
That sounds good: is the recipe as obvious as it sounds or would I need to look it up?
FPT - @Fysics_Teacher - just traditional local food. Works with lamb as well, though it's less strong in flavour. Brown stewing or chump mutton, and simmer till the meat and veg are just right with shallots (better) or onions, carrots, white turnips, and garden peas and broad beans as available, and serve with new potatoes. Very much a summer treat. Edit: can use fresh herbs such as rosemary if wished, and mint for the potatoes.
Adapt veg in winter as needed - eg swap in swede for white turnip, and mashed old potatoes.
To avoid confusion - 'neeps' or turnip can refer to the large yellow swede (rutabaga iFrench). The white turnips I have in mind are these smaller ones which are globe shaped and white often with a purple flush on the dorsal surface of the root.
I suppose kohl-rabi would be a substitute for the white turnip.
Thanks a lot for that: I’m going to have a go at making it. Just need to make a few changes to my next Ocado order...
You may wish to adjust the relative timing to your taste but certainly for chump meat I simplu sling the lot in once the meat is browned!
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Somewhat less dramatic when you point out that Blair had a 170-odd seat majority.
And the Tories also got wiped out in Wales. cf 2019 election result....
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
And does that seem like a good idea to you? Could does not mean should. Parliament has the theoretical power to do a lot of things that would hopefully be unconscionable, or at the very least not casually done in the name of party politics.
I think HYUFD could be Johnson's conscience, which doesn't bode well.
I have sometimes thought that HY could be Johnson himself. He does seem to be remarkably in tune with the way Johnson thinks And he does sometimes come back with hard facts - and even dodgy ones - that would really need a back-up team to cope with..
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
Really? It certainly is in Scotland. I find that remarkable.
Given manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life, I do not think it is particularly necessary (and yes, indeed, there is not English equivalent to 'wicked recklessness')
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Looking at those numbers, it's not obvious that it's Mrs Thatcher, as she won as many seats in 1979 and 1983 as did Ted Heath, nor is it the Poll Tax, because the Conservatives won more seats in 1992 than in 1987, despite a lower share of the vote nationally.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
In 1979, Mrs Thatcher could not have done anything to offend Scots voters. That should be self-evident. Labour was in office until then. Clearly something happened after 1983, or some things.
Thatcher thought the poll tax would be popular. It was introduced in Scotland first because her Scots MPs begged her to bring it in prior to a rates revaluation.
The fact that the whole thing was a complete misjudgement and a disastrous policy doesn’t mean it was introduced to Scotland “maliciously”, what ever the folklore says.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
My guess is 8/12/12 (the 8 going to the one with learning difficulties who said he went along with the others because he was scared of them)
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
But the jury did not acquit.
They found them not guilty of murder, which led to the accused embracing each other in joy and left the deceased's widow devastated. Let's see what the sentence is
Excellent article as always David. I stopped buying The Scotsman when my mother died 3 years ago and I no longer had a reason to drive the 4 miles to the village shop where her magazine subscriptions were handled. I stopped reading the local paper a year later because to be honest I only bought it to check on who had died!
There is another reason why the print newspapers are dying. Like far too many members of the PB community their opinions are irrelevant outside London. Would the Guardian have survived this long if it wasn't the darling of the public sector. Take away all the publicly funded subscriptions by councils etc and how many readers outside London would it have?
I tend to look to SKY News. Invariably they have a man or woman on the scene when the BBC is still talking about some utterly trivial media darling.
One thing Covid-19 has shown only too clearly is how badly the London media circus is struggling to come to terms with the fact that in most aspects of ordinary daily life, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are foreign countries to England and therefore the output of the London-centric media offers little. Why would I care about whether people in London are wearing facemasks in shops since Friday? We have been doing it in Scotland for a fortnight. Why should I be interested in whether or not English schools will return to "normal" in September? The Scottish schools are due to return in a little over 2 weeks time. Two of an increasing list of topics where the London print media is irrelevant to the roughly 10 million people who aren't English but inhabit these islands.
Agreed, but it was evident long before Covid19 that England’s media just couldn’t cope with the challenge of attempting to be the UK’s media. To be honest, they barely tried.
The murder of the Scotsman (thanks Andrew Neil) and the Herald by forces outwith Scotland is a national tragedy, and their loss is still profoundly felt. Our country needs new high-quality media to accurately and honestly report to our nation.
Absolutely right, both of you. I still bitterly regret the loss of the Scotsman and Herald as serious middle of the road newspapers.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
Very well here. Scottish Borders mutton stew (mature sheep, not lamb) with homegrown turnips and potatoes. And plenty of Australian red. Half of it is our curry tomorrow.
That sounds good: is the recipe as obvious as it sounds or would I need to look it up?
FPT - @Fysics_Teacher - just traditional local food. Works with lamb as well, though it's less strong in flavour. Brown stewing or chump mutton, and simmer till the meat and veg are just right with shallots (better) or onions, carrots, white turnips, and garden peas and broad beans as available, and serve with new potatoes. Very much a summer treat. Edit: can use fresh herbs such as rosemary if wished, and mint for the potatoes.
Adapt veg in winter as needed - eg swap in swede for white turnip, and mashed old potatoes.
To avoid confusion - 'neeps' or turnip can refer to the large yellow swede (rutabaga iFrench). The white turnips I have in mind are these smaller ones which are globe shaped and white often with a purple flush on the dorsal surface of the root.
I suppose kohl-rabi would be a substitute for the white turnip.
Thanks a lot for that: I’m going to have a go at making it. Just need to make a few changes to my next Ocado order...
You may wish to adjust the relative timing to your taste but certainly for chump meat I simplu sling the lot in once the meat is browned!
With stews and the like I’ve had some very good results by using a slow cooker, browning the meat and onions first and then, as you say, slinging it all in for a few hours.
Micropayments used to be rejected as unworkable, but that was in the days before PayPal and I think they would work fine these days. I would worry about unintended consequences though; wouldn't things get ultra clickbaity? If clickbait is a problem now when the prize is just page impressions to keep the advertisers happy, what will it be like if the reward is instant hard cash?
Yes, you really want to tweak the incentives a bit rather than just doing pay-per-click. For instance, have an option, after you read the article, to click "Meh" and have the money go not just to the paper that printed it but instead to be pooled among all the papers in the scheme.
You could do something similar for accuracy: Papers probably do actually want to write accurate stuff, but they have to balance that against the need for clicks. So have a rating system later on after more evidence is in - either a panel of experts or a jury of users - and have that direct some of the payments away from the publishers of articles that turned out to be shitty, and towards ones that turned out to be good.
Or combine it with a eating system, like Uber has. Would you click on a link that was rated as 2.1/10
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Looking at those numbers, it's not obvious that it's Mrs Thatcher, as she won as many seats in 1979 and 1983 as did Ted Heath, nor is it the Poll Tax, because the Conservatives won more seats in 1992 than in 1987, despite a lower share of the vote nationally.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
In 1979, Mrs Thatcher could not have done anything to offend Scots voters. That should be self-evident. Labour was in office until then. Clearly something happened after 1983, or some things.
Thatcher thought the poll tax would be popular. It was introduced in Scotland first because her Scots MPs begged her to bring it in prior to a rates revaluation.
The fact that the whole thing was a complete misjudgement and a disastrous policy doesn’t mean it was introduced to Scotland “maliciously”, what ever the folklaw says.
But the Scots had already had a rates revaluation!! So it was malicious in that sense of being a deliberate experiment - the satrap in charge at the timne knew he could impose it and show the new system working.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Well said. It might still be an inexplicable decision but we really are against the whole principle of jury trials if we so definitively conclude it was a nonsense based on feelings and a tiny amount of the info.
There were clear attempts to intimidate the jury, and one of them was thrown off. The fact that they were hardened criminals from families of criminal travellers isn't incidental when there were associates of the accused pointing at the jury in court
But the jury did not acquit.
Yes, if - if- they get the maximum sentence then I'm sure any intimidators would be totally satisfied as it wadnt technically murder.
In Scotland the maximum sentence for what we call culpable homicide is life imprisonment and it is a sentence frequently imposed where the circumstances are egregious enough.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
My guess is 8/12/12 (the 8 going to the one with learning difficulties who said he went along with the others because he was scared of them)
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
My understanding is that Attorney General can apply to the courts for a sentence review and can advocate for it. Not unilaterally change it.
Excellent article as always David. I stopped buying The Scotsman when my mother died 3 years ago and I no longer had a reason to drive the 4 miles to the village shop where her magazine subscriptions were handled. I stopped reading the local paper a year later because to be honest I only bought it to check on who had died!
There is another reason why the print newspapers are dying. Like far too many members of the PB community their opinions are irrelevant outside London. Would the Guardian have survived this long if it wasn't the darling of the public sector. Take away all the publicly funded subscriptions by councils etc and how many readers outside London would it have?
I tend to look to SKY News. Invariably they have a man or woman on the scene when the BBC is still talking about some utterly trivial media darling.
One thing Covid-19 has shown only too clearly is how badly the London media circus is struggling to come to terms with the fact that in most aspects of ordinary daily life, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are foreign countries to England and therefore the output of the London-centric media offers little. Why would I care about whether people in London are wearing facemasks in shops since Friday? We have been doing it in Scotland for a fortnight. Why should I be interested in whether or not English schools will return to "normal" in September? The Scottish schools are due to return in a little over 2 weeks time. Two of an increasing list of topics where the London print media is irrelevant to the roughly 10 million people who aren't English but inhabit these islands.
Agreed, but it was evident long before Covid19 that England’s media just couldn’t cope with the challenge of attempting to be the UK’s media. To be honest, they barely tried.
The murder of the Scotsman (thanks Andrew Neil) and the Herald by forces outwith Scotland is a national tragedy, and their loss is still profoundly felt. Our country needs new high-quality media to accurately and honestly report to our nation.
Absolutely right, both of you. I still bitterly regret the loss of the Scotsman and Herald as serious middle of the road newspapers.
My late sister used to work for the Scotsman in the early sixties
Excellent article as always David. I stopped buying The Scotsman when my mother died 3 years ago and I no longer had a reason to drive the 4 miles to the village shop where her magazine subscriptions were handled. I stopped reading the local paper a year later because to be honest I only bought it to check on who had died!
There is another reason why the print newspapers are dying. Like far too many members of the PB community their opinions are irrelevant outside London. Would the Guardian have survived this long if it wasn't the darling of the public sector. Take away all the publicly funded subscriptions by councils etc and how many readers outside London would it have?
I tend to look to SKY News. Invariably they have a man or woman on the scene when the BBC is still talking about some utterly trivial media darling.
One thing Covid-19 has shown only too clearly is how badly the London media circus is struggling to come to terms with the fact that in most aspects of ordinary daily life, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are foreign countries to England and therefore the output of the London-centric media offers little. Why would I care about whether people in London are wearing facemasks in shops since Friday? We have been doing it in Scotland for a fortnight. Why should I be interested in whether or not English schools will return to "normal" in September? The Scottish schools are due to return in a little over 2 weeks time. Two of an increasing list of topics where the London print media is irrelevant to the roughly 10 million people who aren't English but inhabit these islands.
Agreed, but it was evident long before Covid19 that England’s media just couldn’t cope with the challenge of attempting to be the UK’s media. To be honest, they barely tried.
The murder of the Scotsman (thanks Andrew Neil) and the Herald by forces outwith Scotland is a national tragedy, and their loss is still profoundly felt. Our country needs new high-quality media to accurately and honestly report to our nation.
Absolutely right, both of you. I still bitterly regret the loss of the Scotsman and Herald as serious middle of the road newspapers.
My late sister used to work for the Scotsman in the early sixties
It was a really, really good newspaper. And the office was fantastic, with its views over North Bridge to Princes St.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
HYUFD is, I am afraid, wrong. The AG can ask the Court of Appeal to review and increase sentence. He can't do it himself. The CA does have the power to increase sentence. Parliament cannot impose a sentence by amending the law retrospectively because (a) that is basically an Act of Attainder and an action typical of Nazi Germany or Gulag USSR, it's fantasy and (b) even if valid the Courts would over rule it.
Parliament is sovereign if it passes or amends a statute it can do whatever it likes and the courts must obey
USA Dem Veep nominee -- Karen Bass is into 11/2 on Betfair but you can get 7/1 from Ladbrokes, and possibly more with an odds boost. Ladbrokes is alone in the village in still quoting Bass at a longer price than Tammy Duckworth.
Yet Rice is at 4. This is just about her lowest for a month (briefly 3.9 last week).
Joe Biden's timetable was to have completed background checks this last week before moving on to speak personally with the remaining contenders before announcing his choice next month. There will no doubt be more in the American Sunday papers tomorrow about who remains in the frame.
Some information -- or is it mere speculation? -- about the background checks may have leaked into the betting market, as Michelle Lujan Grisham and Stacey Abrams moved markedly out on Betfair a couple of days back. Susan Rice was 20/1 last month, Karen Bass 20/1 as recently as last week.
I'm green on all the likely names but Harris. But my big payola will be Rice.
I will be getting a little tense in two or so weeks time.
The professional thing for me to do is green up and take my Betfair profits now, rather than risk losing the lot because Biden takes a shine to someone we've none of us heard of. But where's the fun in that? And anyway, I'd just dive straight back into the market the next day. Not that I'm a big player. Whatever happens, it will not amount to "the price of a small car" that PBers have won in the past.
One problem with reading the American media is that in most cases, they are just reporting on other reports of rumours, so if you are not careful you come away thinking something is more certain than is actually the case -- you've read it in four places, but on close examination, three of them are just quoting the first.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
Whoever it is with, the mere implication that Dominic Cummings might be in some way involved was enough to make me hear the opening bars of the Horst Wessel song.
The option of a life sentence is open to the judge. Let’s see if it gets taken before we start talking about what happens next.
But isn’t it slightly ironic that Tony Blair’s attempts to separate the judiciary and the legislature (like most of his constitutional reforms, half baked, based on a lack of understanding of how the system worked and designed more to showcase Tone’s greatness than to correct a fault) seem to have had the opposite effect?
Regarding Tony's legal reforms, you could tell he had done a law based degree at Oxford University, which led to the fiasco about abolishing the Lord Chancellor.
Not so long ago the Home Secretary had the power to increase sentences but that power was pretty much taken away from politicians when a case was brought against Michael Howard.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
Whoever it is with, the mere implication that Dominic Cummings might be in some way involved was enough to make me hear the opening bars of the Horst Wessel song.
The option of a life sentence is open to the judge. Let’s see if it gets taken before we start talking about what happens next.
But isn’t it slightly ironic that Tony Blair’s attempts to separate the judiciary and the legislature (like most of his constitutional reforms, half baked, based on a lack of understanding of how the system worked and designed more to showcase Tone’s greatness than to correct a fault) seem to have had the opposite effect?
IANAL, but I thought that this case was very, very close to the border between murder and manslaughter, and unless I've missed something the verdict was the jury's decision, not the judge's.The judge obviously advised on the law. Otherwise I agree with The Doctor; let's wait for next Friday and see what sentence is given.
I'm going to make £50 from @Pagan2 when they get sent down
Manslaughter can carry a life sentence, can't it? My guess is that those scumbags will be behind bars for much longer than they currently think.
Let’s hope 15/years and compulsory sterilization would be a start. Maybe if their parenthood is known they should also be locked up and sterilized.
They come from families/a community that live outside what we would consider normal society - at least one of them, possibly more than one, had no conventional state schooling after 12. They are a law unto themselves. I am happy to believe that their families tried to intimidate the jurors, and reckon they may well have succeeded.
Anyway, I am not saying and haven't said, this, that or the other should happen, just interested to see. I wondered whether there would be a retrial because people like Lord Blunkett were querying the goings on that led to the accused being victorious and the deceased's widow devastated when the verdict's were delivered.
I doubt they intended to kill the policeman, they just didn't care that he died
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
What this case makes me think is how hugely overrated juries are. They don't understand the law, and they are extremely vulnerable to intimidation (a vulnerability which is not compensated by giving them a bit of police protection during the actual trial, because you would actually need to protect 12 people and their nearest and dearest for ever after, and there aren't enough policemen for that). It's all very well to say fundamental right, Magna Carta, Penn's case etc etc but that is pure English exceptionalism. Most EU countries don't routinely have trial by jury and I am not worried that continental jails are full of the wrongly convicted as a result. Actually, I am much more convinced by the obverse case that the UK streets are full of the wrongly acquitted by thick and frightened juries.
And considering that we imprison more of ourselves per capita than anywhere in the EU, the trusty shield of British fair play looks embarrassingly ineffective anyway. So why make a shibboleth of its most outdated and ineffective aspect, instead of having trial by judges who know the law and can be effectively protected from intimidation?
So juries wrongly acquit many criminals but we lock up more than anyone else? How can these both be true? And these boys haven’t been acquitted. They have been convicted of a serious charge which should result in some years in jail ( which is why the bail decision seems odd).
Because we charge more people, or impose more prison sentences, or something?
Can't immediately find a more up to date source but I am sure there is one.
It is irrelevant that the boys haven't been acquitted, that was never on the cards here. A realistic juror-intimidator would be saying - manslaughter and your house doesn't burn down, murder and it does. Professional crims generally know their way around the criminal law.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
Really? It certainly is in Scotland. I find that remarkable.
Given manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life, I do not think it is particularly necessary (and yes, indeed, there is not English equivalent to 'wicked recklessness')
I think that this case is a good example of the utility of such a rule. In my view Scots law has got this one right. I feel grievously sorry for the widow.
When Tony Blair attended Fettes in Edinburgh, the SNP did not hold a single seat, and support for Scottish independence was in single figures. You make your own mind up about the effects of devolution.
I think for me, devolution was one of the three great catalysts that have led to that increase:
- the Labour Opposition's denial that Thatcherism had democratic legitimacy in Scotland, which undermined the legitimacy of the Union - the Labour Governmnent granting devolution, which created an alternative power centre in Edinburgh, while not creating a fully federal UK, so the structure always looked half-baked - the fact that, whatever one thinks of their record in government, the SNP have had two of the most skilful political leaders of my lifetime in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A fourth might be the Brexit referendum, but I'm not so convinced that's led to an Indy surge.
Surely another big factor is continuing Tory governments in Westminster. Labour actually increased its vote in 2010 in Scotland under Gordon Brown.
Fishing by name and nature, perhaps, in blaming Labour's opposition to Thatcherism but not the lady herself, or indeed the poll tax which was introduced in Scotland first. Look at the dates on the table below, and see when Tory representation fell off a cliff.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections: 1970 -- 23 2/74 -- 21 1074 -- 16 1979 -- 22 1983 -- 21 1987 -- 10 1992 -- 11 1997 -- 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
Looking at those numbers, it's not obvious that it's Mrs Thatcher, as she won as many seats in 1979 and 1983 as did Ted Heath, nor is it the Poll Tax, because the Conservatives won more seats in 1992 than in 1987, despite a lower share of the vote nationally.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
In 1979, Mrs Thatcher could not have done anything to offend Scots voters. That should be self-evident. Labour was in office until then. Clearly something happened after 1983, or some things.
Thatcher thought the poll tax would be popular. It was introduced in Scotland first because her Scots MPs begged her to bring it in prior to a rates revaluation.
The fact that the whole thing was a complete misjudgement and a disastrous policy doesn’t mean it was introduced to Scotland “maliciously”, what ever the folklore says.
Culpable misjudgment rather than malice then. Sentence 20 years of 0-1 MPs.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
They review the sentence and if they think it is too low they can send it to the court of appeal
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
Retrospectively changing the law should NEVER be allowed. I know a couple of such changes have happened, but the whole idea stinks.
You wouldn’t change the law retrospectively. All you have to do is pass an Act of Attainer.
Doesn’t a micropayment system just lead to click bait? Subscription based models do at least bring brand loyalty and an incentive to maintain quality.
Re: previous thread and line of “murder or manslaughter, what matters is the sentence”.
Isn’t one of the issues that the judge’s sentence is just the start - the crime they are convicted of is likely to have a big impact on the likelihood and terms of future parole?
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
I think HYUFD is talking rubbish again.
The final word isn’t with the Attorney General but the Court of Appeal.
No the Attorney General has the power to review sentences as that link makes clear.
The Court of Appeal has no power to then lower sentences only increase them.
Plus Parliament is sovereign not judges anyway and the Tories have a majority of 80 and Boris and Cummings can thus amend the law including retrospectively whatever the Appeal Court thinks
HYUFD is, I am afraid, wrong. The AG can ask the Court of Appeal to review and increase sentence. He can't do it himself. The CA does have the power to increase sentence. Parliament cannot impose a sentence by amending the law retrospectively because (a) that is basically an Act of Attainder and an action typical of Nazi Germany or Gulag USSR, it's fantasy and (b) even if valid the Courts would over rule it.
Parliament is sovereign if it passes or amends a statute it can do whatever it likes and the courts must obey
I look forward to you advocating Parliament abolishing the Septennial Act if things look like getting a bit sticky.
Hopefully their lack of remorse will play a part in the sentencing. This was from an earlier trial, but yesterday they were laughing as the details of PC Harper’s death were read.
As a lawyer, albeit a Scots lawyer, I simply don’t understand this decision. Murder is when you intend to kill or show a reckless indifference to the consequences of your actions. Where you are involved in a criminal act that indifference is readily inferred.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
Recklessness is not sufficient to establish murder, and, I would have thought, the basis for the jury's decision.
Yes it is. If you are engaged in a criminal act (they were) and you intend to cause serious harm but didn't intend death that is still intent for the purpose of murder.
If they knowingly dragged someone on the tarmac they surely knowingly intended to cause serious harm.
@Carnyx I’ve ordered the ingredients (had to make do with lamb not mutton) and will be attempting that in a few days time: thanks again for replying!
My pleasure. It feels slightly odd to be giving a recipe for such a basic home dish - but the combination of the sheep meat and turnip and shallot is one I like very much indeed. Like mashed potatoes, mashed swede served with haggis. Or sliced cold meat served with pickled beetroot and stovies (coarsely chopped potatoes and onions sweated togeter in a clossed pan with al ittle dripping or oil into a mash) - I discvovered the Danes use exactly the same combination ( as labskaus).
Just had time to read the header, sad to say it's the first David Herdson header that's a miss and a bit uninformed.
Online publications already benefit from "micropayments" or click through revenue because they all affiliate links to products they write about. Companies like Hearst Communications which owns the likes of Cosmo and Delish have gigantic affiliate marketing operations and whole teams of writers dedicated to generating click through revenue and it's a huge revenue driver for these guys.
Newspapers have been very late to the game on this, except the Daily Mail and Reach (the owner of the Mirror and Express) who have rolled out a very aggressive affiliate strategy and it is now becoming the third major revenue source, and allied with deal and coupon subsites run by the likes of Global Savings Group, both of these major tabloid publishers have lessened their reliance on circulation. The Guardian is also in the process of adding significant affiliate marketing operations but their audience is much less accepting of the kind of content needed to drive affiliate revenue so it's a tough sell.
People don't want to directly pay for content, well not enough do anyway, even The Times which is the most successful example of he paywall in this country is struggling to stay above the critical mass level of subscribers that makes the newspaper sustainable. Publishers are having to diversify income which means driving traffic to click bait type articles to generate affiliate revenue. To my mind the Guardian and the Telegraph are the two biggest losers from this and I could see one or both not surviving.
Comments
Perhaps you should have given David’s article more thought. Ultimately you can’t get something for nothing.
Numbers of Conservative MPs returned from Scotland at successive general elections:
1970 -- 23
2/74 -- 21
1074 -- 16
1979 -- 22
1983 -- 21
1987 -- 10
1992 -- 11
1997 -- 0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland
I myself am fairly agnostic about Scottish independence, and would positively favour it if they took Northern Ireland with them, or if we could use it as an opportunity to give that place to the Republic. But I doubt we'd get that lucky.
https://twitter.com/mollygiles2015/status/1286745326485897219?s=21
They've just delivered chocolate to our house. Which is nice.
Local newsagents. Four of us. All masked, plus the shop owner.
One bloke moaning though that it was hard to hear what the shop worker was asking as he was also wearing a mask.
I will be getting a little tense in two or so weeks time.
I fell out of the habit of picking up freesheets when commuting was cancelled earlier this year.
I can only think that the trial judge either failed to explain this or the jury were not listening. Allowing them bail for reports is equally bizarre. What on earth was he thinking?
And the Tories also got wiped out in Wales. cf 2019 election result....
If there is a law that everyone thought meant X, but the Supreme Court suddenly decides it means Y, then legislation to change it so that it always was what everyone thought it was might be justified.
Other than that I can’t think of any justification: you should not be able to convict someone of something that was not that crime when they did it.
In any case, opposition to Mrs Thatcher in the 80s transferred to support for the Labour Party, which did not itself undermine the Union. It was only when Labour argued that the Conservative government had no mandate in Scotland (though they did not argue that the Tories had no mandate in Liverpool or Islington, at least not that I recall) that they implicitly legitimised Scottish nationalism.
Fishing is just the first word that popped into my head when I had to choose a user name. I don't fish and never have. It's a stupid one and I should probably change it, especially with all the debates about EU fisheries quotas going on.
Snowdonia LIVE: Updates as police turn away scores of drivers amid new parking rules
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/snowdonia-live-updates-police-turn-18660733#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
The Spectator is successful because it aggregates opinion and makes it available at a cost-effective price. It makes sure to have a range of writers, but there are some that it just could not do without.
The Times works because it does most things very well - it provides a range of opinion, has excellent business pages and the sports coverage is by far the best of any newspaper's. By contrast, the Telegraph and the Guardian feed their readers' prejudices, but don't do much else that well. Both have broken big and important stories - but, as I say, people won't pay for that.
Adapt veg in winter as needed - eg swap in swede for white turnip, and mashed old potatoes.
To avoid confusion - 'neeps' or turnip can refer to the large yellow swede (rutabaga iFrench). The white turnips I have in mind are these smaller ones which are globe shaped and white often with a purple flush on the dorsal surface of the root.
I suppose kohl-rabi would be a substitute for the white turnip.
On the physical newspapers I miss the Telegraph's Sujiko puzzles and its absorbancy for dealing with water spillages and leaks.
If people want to moan, why not wait and see what sentences are passed down? I'm fairly convinced that those found guilty of killing will face long custodial sentences. Then those that are not happy will come back and say "should have been for life!", of course.
And considering that we imprison more of ourselves per capita than anywhere in the EU, the trusty shield of British fair play looks embarrassingly ineffective anyway. So why make a shibboleth of its most outdated and ineffective aspect, instead of having trial by judges who know the law and can be effectively protected from intimidation?
Here is Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine on Micropayments in the Graun in 2009:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/23/digital-media-online-content
"Like a gopher in the garden, the notion of newspapers charging for content online keeps popping its nose up out of the dirt. "
I think the question for David is obvious - what has changed, and what are the questions around an industry cartel on a platform, such that this will work?
We have newspaper models which work - specialist quality such as FT, Daily Mail and celebs, Independent (maybe) with good SEO and trolling Google, Times / Sunday Times, and it was only recently that the Graun was claiming success for their voluntary subscriptions.
We now have successful models for subscribing to individuals, whether self-owned platforms or Patreon. These work for distinctive voices (Laurie Penny for example makes £3k a month on Patreon; perhaps Douglas Murray could also do well).
We also have personal versions of the Mail. Many influencers - Look at meee! Look at my eyes! Look at my curls! Look at my bikini! - are really a self-controlled version of the Daily Mail bums 'n' boobs 'n' slebs 'n' affiliate model. Or a male / gay / whatever version of the same.
We also have people prominent in their subject area, but it needs 150k Youtube subs to do much income.
I haven't looked but I think there will be a plethora of micropayment platforms available.
I think the problem is still the same - news is free, and people are willing to write it for free, and newspapers do not add enough to justify their continued existence just from news.
Oliver Dowden.
"2 out 3 ain't bad."
Nitty Gritty Dirt Band.
Last week 500 cars parked on PenyPass obstructing the service buses and access including mountain rescue and emergency services. 180 cars had fixed parking notices and the authorities decided that strict parking regulations would be enforced with tow trucks.
There is talk of the park introducing park and ride services to prevent the selfish and stupid spoiling it for the rest
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
Our own country probably has similar quotes and definitely the same point. Our parliament can ultimately do what it wants but there are very good reasons they dont do that in almost all cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53534950
2 door E36 3 series go for way more than 4 doors though (even though the 4 door is stiffer and a better car) so your theory holds there...
Strict appointment, handgel and mask, no one else in waiting room, one hour between appointments and while a bit strange, first class service
And I am in Denplan
The fact that the whole thing was a complete misjudgement and a disastrous policy doesn’t mean it was introduced to Scotland “maliciously”, what ever the folklore says.
No parole before 6/8/8
"If the offender is assessed as dangerous the judge may pass either a life sentence or an extended sentence of imprisonment to protect the public."
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Manslaughter-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf
One problem with reading the American media is that in most cases, they are just reporting on other reports of rumours, so if you are not careful you come away thinking something is more certain than is actually the case -- you've read it in four places, but on close examination, three of them are just quoting the first.
It’s correctly the “Lord High Chancellor”
Anyway, I am not saying and haven't said, this, that or the other should happen, just interested to see. I wondered whether there would be a retrial because people like Lord Blunkett were querying the goings on that led to the accused being victorious and the deceased's widow devastated when the verdict's were delivered.
I doubt they intended to kill the policeman, they just didn't care that he died
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn1page1.stm
Can't immediately find a more up to date source but I am sure there is one.
It is irrelevant that the boys haven't been acquitted, that was never on the cards here. A realistic juror-intimidator would be saying - manslaughter and your house doesn't burn down, murder and it does. Professional crims generally know their way around the criminal law.
Sentence 20 years of 0-1 MPs.
They can’t change the sentence unilaterally
If they knowingly dragged someone on the tarmac they surely knowingly intended to cause serious harm.
Online publications already benefit from "micropayments" or click through revenue because they all affiliate links to products they write about. Companies like Hearst Communications which owns the likes of Cosmo and Delish have gigantic affiliate marketing operations and whole teams of writers dedicated to generating click through revenue and it's a huge revenue driver for these guys.
Newspapers have been very late to the game on this, except the Daily Mail and Reach (the owner of the Mirror and Express) who have rolled out a very aggressive affiliate strategy and it is now becoming the third major revenue source, and allied with deal and coupon subsites run by the likes of Global Savings Group, both of these major tabloid publishers have lessened their reliance on circulation. The Guardian is also in the process of adding significant affiliate marketing operations but their audience is much less accepting of the kind of content needed to drive affiliate revenue so it's a tough sell.
People don't want to directly pay for content, well not enough do anyway, even The Times which is the most successful example of he paywall in this country is struggling to stay above the critical mass level of subscribers that makes the newspaper sustainable. Publishers are having to diversify income which means driving traffic to click bait type articles to generate affiliate revenue. To my mind the Guardian and the Telegraph are the two biggest losers from this and I could see one or both not surviving.
Your politicians were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.