I hope you're right Southam, this verdict makes a mockery of the idea of justice.
I looked up that, too, and although IANAL, as before, I agree with @isam; 'I doubt they intended to kill the policeman, they just didn't care that he died'. And yes, they could get life, with a minimum term before parole. AIUI, a life sentence means just that, although one can be paroled. Which, as I understand it, is different from being on licence, in that any further offence can result in recall to prison.
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
I still think you should share 😞
Read that exchange. NOT a fair bet. Pagan should be let off.
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.
Just to be clear, I am not sure why the jury didn't infer intent.
I believe the defence case was that the accused was not aware of what was happening, which would support acquital; however, having found that they were aware (which presumably they did because no acquital) I think most people would have inferred intent.
Nevertheless I think people underestimate how long 10 years (for example) actually is. There is a reason the minimum tariff for premeditated murder is frequently only 20 years.
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.
I am sure that the lawyers on here are glad to have someone of HYUFD's legal stature to teach them their jobs...
O/T - I wonder how much U.K. perceptions of the safety of foreign (particularly EU) travel is being skewed by the testing regimes? How many EU countries are running equivalent to the UK’s “pillar 2” testing programme? France is apparently now reporting 1000+ cases a day. And these are ALL “in hospitals”.
I find one of the big frustrations about this is whole situation is the lack of availability of genuinely comparative information. Occasionally articles surface in the press, but after a few caveats are cited they then seem to decide it’s all too difficult and give up.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
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
I still think you should share 😞
Read that exchange. NOT a fair bet. Pagan should be let off.
I may be wrong but I'd suspect he'd think the best educations are paid for, so..
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Perhaps they are and nobody has recognised them because of the masks...
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Not up to date with the ins and outs of the Windsors but I thought the only popular ones live overseas these days?
Also on click through, there has been one prominent example of a company which has tried to make the jump the other way - BuzzFeed and they have comprehensively failed to make a sustainable news reporting department. It's the classic example of how new media thinks they can do a better job that old media and then fail for all of the same reasons. We've seen BuzzFeed close down their UK, Australia and most of their US news reporting teams because they were such a huge net drag on the more revenue driven "top 10" listicle driven content.
I hope you're right Southam, this verdict makes a mockery of the idea of justice.
I looked up that, too, and although IANAL, as before, I agree with @isam; 'I doubt they intended to kill the policeman, they just didn't care that he died'. And yes, they could get life, with a minimum term before parole. AIUI, a life sentence means just that, although one can be paroled. Which, as I understand it, is different from being on licence, in that any further offence can result in recall to prison.
I believe with a life sentence there is much flexibility as to minimum term served and this is mainly at the discretion of the judge.
So what could happen is these men get LIFE but with a minimum term lower than it would have been if it were a murder conviction. 8 years, say, instead of 15. Or 12 years instead of 20. This sort of calculus.
The PR for the public in going this route would perhaps be better. I sense a strong need to hear the word LIFE in the sentence. And for this to be the headline. "PC killers get Life."
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.
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'm still unclear if you think doing so in this case or others would be a good idea or not. If you don't then why bring it up?
Just been shopping in Cramlington. Mask usage 100%.
Having the NE Covid hospital will concentrate minds. However that tallies with my experience yesterday. It is astonishing how it happened overnight.
Yes, I can’t think of anything that changed between Thursday and Friday. Shows what a load of nonsense it was all these people posting on here how about the English mask compliance being lower than in other EU countries. It was higher where it was the law, lower where it wasn’t. Quelle surprise.
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
I think the general policy is to only use the major figures for public events as comes across as streamlined and less expensive, and for another no one knows the minor younger figures. So really it'd just be Kate and Will now that Harry has retired (though for someone who hates the press so much he seems to still want a lot of attention).
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.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
Exactly. Steve Bell (not normally sympathetic to the SNP) had a theme of the time in his cartoon strip portraying the Scots as guinea pigs in kilts furious at being forced to go through the Tory hamster wheel.
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
I believe Andrew loves a mask.
He looks a bit nervous there, Andrew. It's like he's arrived, looked around, and realized he's the only one WITHOUT a mask.
And it doesn't look like Pizza Express to me either.
The Royals have been received this Saturday in Santiago de Compostela to applause and shouts of "Long live Spain!" in front of the church of San Martiño Pinario, where the traditional offering to the Apostle on Galicia Day takes place, which is not celebrated in the cathedral due to the works. The acting President of the Xunta de Galicia, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, and the President of the Constitutional Court, Juan José González Rivas, welcomed them after getting out of the official car accompanied by the Third Vice President and Minister of Economic Affairs, Nadia Calviño, all of them protected by a mask.
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 predicated 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.
Is the UK really that similar to the US - or are we viewing our disagreements through the prism of their culture wars, lending too much weight to the views of loud-but-small protest groups and media celebrities, and concluding (falsely) that the two polities are more alike than they actually are?
The main division in the UK isn't between these cultural groups - most of the population is small-c conservative - it's between its constituent parts. This remains true, despite the unexpectedly strong performance by Labour in 2017 - Labour would never have done as well as it did if more attention had been devoted to Corbyn and his policies, and if there had been any serious expectation that he might actually win - and still Theresa May finished more than 50 seats clear.
As we all know, the last genuinely left-wing UK Government was elected in October 1974, and that was only with a three seat majority. Today, nearly half-a-century later, it's only the strength of Scottish Nationalism that confuses the overall picture. At the last General Election the Tories won a bigger share of the popular vote in England than the SNP did in Scotland, and a majority of over 150. There are good reasons for this, and they go way beyond arguments over Europe.
The swing voters of provincial England will put Labour back into bat when three conditions are fulfilled: when they are fed-up with the Tories and think it's time for a change, when they want more care and attention paid to public services, and when they feel sufficiently reassured that Labour isn't a threat to their prosperity and security. The notion that there's also a massive constituency of voters out there who are mad-keen on ripping down contentious statues, paying reparations for slavery, cutting police budgets to free up money for more social workers and diversity officers, and inviting every migrant who turns up at Calais to come over and settle here is for the birds.
It is surely worth considering the possibility that there is, in fact, no American-style "culture war" in Britain, other than between attention seeking campaigners and media outlets? Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
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.
Must you be so informal?
It’s correctly the “Lord High Chancellor”
Is he the one in wig and tights?
He’s the one with what might be the best patter song in Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas: www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lewe9DdQg
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Not up to date with the ins and outs of the Windsors but I thought the only popular ones live overseas these days?
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
... Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
Would that be when England is finally independent? What about that little extra bit to the west known as "Wales"? Or is that merely Extreme Western England these days?
I use Axate. This works with Popbitch and a number of local papers at like 20p per paid article. I keep suggestion to the Guardian everytime / everyday they send begging emails/prompts...But they think they know best...
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.
Must you be so informal?
It’s correctly the “Lord High Chancellor”
Is he the one in wig and tights?
He’s the one with what might be the best patter song in Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas: www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lewe9DdQg
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Not up to date with the ins and outs of the Windsors but I thought the only popular ones live overseas these days?
Their planned upcoming book will only feed a media frenzy that I thought they did not like. Presumably it will only be of interest for someme tawdry anecdotes of various royals being mean to Harry and Meghan, up to and including Her Majesty.
... Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
Would that be when England is finally independent? What about that little extra bit to the west known as "Wales"? Or is that merely Extreme Western England these days?
Well, I'd heard that the word Welsh derives from a word meaning, essentially, 'foreign', so it wouldn't be far off if that is true.
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 predicated 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.
Is the UK really that similar to the US - or are we viewing our disagreements through the prism of their culture wars, lending too much weight to the views of loud-but-small protest groups and media celebrities, and concluding (falsely) that the two polities are more alike than they actually are?
The main division in the UK isn't between these cultural groups - most of the population is small-c conservative - it's between its constituent parts. This remains true, despite the unexpectedly strong performance by Labour in 2017 - Labour would never have done as well as it did if more attention had been devoted to Corbyn and his policies, and if there had been any serious expectation that he might actually win - and still Theresa May finished more than 50 seats clear.
As we all know, the last genuinely left-wing UK Government was elected in October 1974, and that was only with a three seat majority. Today, nearly half-a-century later, it's only the strength of Scottish Nationalism that confuses the overall picture. At the last General Election the Tories won a bigger share of the popular vote in England than the SNP did in Scotland, and a majority of over 150. There are good reasons for this, and they go way beyond arguments over Europe.
The swing voters of provincial England will put Labour back into bat when three conditions are fulfilled: when they are fed-up with the Tories and think it's time for a change, when they want more care and attention paid to public services, and when they feel sufficiently reassured that Labour isn't a threat to their prosperity and security. The notion that there's also a massive constituency of voters out there who are mad-keen on ripping down contentious statues, paying reparations for slavery, cutting police budgets to free up money for more social workers and diversity officers, and inviting every migrant who turns up at Calais to come over and settle here is for the birds.
It is surely worth considering the possibility that there is, in fact, no American-style "culture war" in Britain, other than between attention seeking campaigners and media outlets? Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
All good points apart from the last paragraph imo! I agree with your central premise, the UK is not the USA and wont be.
But our relationship with the EU and indeed the world is nowhere near settled, we have just said what we dont want from EU, China and the US, not defined what we do want and is actually available. Very unsure as to the existence of any resolution to Scotland or Northern Ireland that will resolve them, let alone our ability to identify and agree on such a solution, and then implement it well.
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 predicated 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.
Is the UK really that similar to the US - or are we viewing our disagreements through the prism of their culture wars, lending too much weight to the views of loud-but-small protest groups and media celebrities, and concluding (falsely) that the two polities are more alike than they actually are?
The main division in the UK isn't between these cultural groups - most of the population is small-c conservative - it's between its constituent parts. This remains true, despite the unexpectedly strong performance by Labour in 2017 - Labour would never have done as well as it did if more attention had been devoted to Corbyn and his policies, and if there had been any serious expectation that he might actually win - and still Theresa May finished more than 50 seats clear.
As we all know, the last genuinely left-wing UK Government was elected in October 1974, and that was only with a three seat majority. Today, nearly half-a-century later, it's only the strength of Scottish Nationalism that confuses the overall picture. At the last General Election the Tories won a bigger share of the popular vote in England than the SNP did in Scotland, and a majority of over 150. There are good reasons for this, and they go way beyond arguments over Europe.
The swing voters of provincial England will put Labour back into bat when three conditions are fulfilled: when they are fed-up with the Tories and think it's time for a change, when they want more care and attention paid to public services, and when they feel sufficiently reassured that Labour isn't a threat to their prosperity and security. The notion that there's also a massive constituency of voters out there who are mad-keen on ripping down contentious statues, paying reparations for slavery, cutting police budgets to free up money for more social workers and diversity officers, and inviting every migrant who turns up at Calais to come over and settle here is for the birds.
It is surely worth considering the possibility that there is, in fact, no American-style "culture war" in Britain, other than between attention seeking campaigners and media outlets? Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
Culture wars come in many forms. Scotland is moving away from England in part, at least, because a lot of Scots no longer believe they share the same values as the English.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
The Tories were also implacably opposed to any form of devolution settlement for Scotland. That has to have something to do with the collapse in support.
With old-fashioned paper newspapers and magazines, I tend to read a wider range of articles by writers with a wider range of views. Online it's much easier to just read what you want to read.
On topic, the article is excellent, but misses something I have long argued.
The upside of the internet is that certain specialist news sources have popped up - a classic example is Nasaspaceflight.com. Their reporting (on all things relating to space) is extremely accurate, extremely technical and is backed by a vast amount of inside information.
Arstechnica is another one - itself an aggregator, but a great place to find talent on various issues.
Back to the hot topic of the day - and yet not off topic.
The biggest gap in the reporting of the case of the hour is any attempt to explain why the jury did what they did.
My first thought would be -
1) An explanation of the legal definition of murder and manslaughter in England. 2) The arguments used by protection and defense. 3) Analyse why the above could have led to the decision. If the decision doesn't follow from the above, add speculation {here}
This would require a legal expert who can translate to human. But they exist.
I have not found any such analysis, yet. Please feel free to point one out.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
With old-fashioned paper newspapers and magazines, I tend to read a wider range of articles by writers with a wider range of views. Online it's much easier to just read what you want to read.
Definitely the opposite for me. I would never read Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens at al. in print because I wouldn't pay for their papers.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Yeah, what I meant was the double negative: It wasn't removed when Scotland objected. It was removed when England objected.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Anyone who has any personal knowledge of the French or Italian criminal justice systems (and I do) would not so casually assume they are better or dismiss the value of ours - even if there are things which could be done to improve 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.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
The Tories were also implacably opposed to any form of devolution settlement for Scotland. That has to have something to do with the collapse in support.
Much like their part in facilitating the Iraq war, Tories hate to be reminded that their false promises, obstuctionism and masterly(sic) inactivity over devolution played their full part in bringing it about in the form it was & is. If the SNP were one of the midwives of Thatcherism, the Tories and Thacher repaid them with interest.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
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
We created them. Us. The people
How so?
Well, one of the offshoots of Blairs policies was that communities should be handled separately. Individually.
So we saw differential law enforcement. No need to grind over the old ground. But the essence was that the police withdrew from certain communities. This was matched by withdrawals by other state agencies - social workers, schools. Even building inspectors....
The effect was, of course, that the worst elements in those communities took control. It is a standard social observation, that in any tight nit ethnic community, the criminal element will abuse their own first. Then outsiders, when they have grown big and bold enough.
So we have children growing up, in an environment where the rules of the external world are irrelevant.
It rather reminds me of a scene in Heinlein's Starship Troopers - the book
Missed from the useless film, a teacher discusses with the class why the old world fell. He points out an unfairness of the old system - children allowed to become criminals. No punishment. Until one day, they graduated to murder and got hit by the force of the State...
For those in such communities - for the law abiding majority - the external* world is very far away. Which explains such things as low levels of cooperation with Track and Trace, gaps in the crime maps**, the absence of reporting of illegal wages and conditions in factories....
The abandonment works both ways - the system has withdrawn. Which means they are not there when *needed*
Such a system of isolated communities abuses the communities themselves. It creates an Apartheid system - of second class citizens not able to fully access the facilities of the state. Taken advantage of by whatever Community Leaders*** float to the top.
*Sometime termed the "white" world by campaigners. **When crime maps were introduced, it became clear that either some communities have no crime. Or that they don't report it. ***Coming from Northern Ireland, I mentally replace Community Leader with "Fascist Criminal Torture Murderer Racist With Table Manners".
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
I wasn't really with it politically at the time so can't comment with any certainty. But I do wonder if the rates revaluation hit the wealthier areas badly (shock at realising how much things had been allowed to swing in their favour and then the correction) - hence the 1987 result. Elderly widow in large stone villa sort of thing. But it was mitigated when the poll tax made massive cuts in bills, hence the 1992 revival. The poll tax hit the poorer areas disproportionately but they were already voting Labour anyway ...?
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Indeed, but it gave the Scots the impression that they were being used for testing like lab rats - not a feeling that goes down well....
... Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
Would that be when England is finally independent? What about that little extra bit to the west known as "Wales"? Or is that merely Extreme Western England these days?
Well, I'd heard that the word Welsh derives from a word meaning, essentially, 'foreign', so it wouldn't be far off if that is true.
It does - more specifically thw [edit] Anglosaxon word for the original Britons, as also in Cornwall/Cornwelsh. Also with overtones of slave.
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.
There could have been something she had done as LotO or as a Cabinet Minister under Heath, or something in the Conservative Manifesto.
I agree, the decline in support between 83 and 87 needs some explanation though. It can't have been the Community Charge, because it wasn't a big issue till 1988/9 (though it was, unnoticed, in the 87 manifesto). Mrs Thatcher was still the same person she had been in 1983. And I doubt it was the privatisation of British Gas.
As to what it was, I genuinely don't know.
Either way, suggesting it was just Mrs Thatcher and the reform of local taxation is clearly much too simplistic.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
I wasn't really with it politically at the time so can't comment with any certainty. But I do wonder if the rates revaluation hit the wealthier areas badly (shock at realising how much things had been allowed to swing in their favour and then the correction) - hence the 1987 result. Elderly widow in large stone villa sort of thing. But it was mitigated when the poll tax made massive cuts in bills, hence the 1992 revival. The poll tax hit the poorer areas disproportionately but they were already voting Labour anyway ...?
So we can assume that council tax will be based on 1991 house valuations for ever?
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
I’m obviously missing some subtle point? The poll tax was introduced in England?
Yeah, what I meant was the double negative: It wasn't removed when Scotland objected. It was removed when England objected.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
I wasn't really with it politically at the time so can't comment with any certainty. But I do wonder if the rates revaluation hit the wealthier areas badly (shock at realising how much things had been allowed to swing in their favour and then the correction) - hence the 1987 result. Elderly widow in large stone villa sort of thing. But it was mitigated when the poll tax made massive cuts in bills, hence the 1992 revival. The poll tax hit the poorer areas disproportionately but they were already voting Labour anyway ...?
So we can assume that council tax will be based on 1991 house valuations for ever?
Dunno about England but there is an ongoing debate not so much to revalue council tax in Scotland as to replace it completely. Not surprisingly the Greens and the Tories disagree bitterly ...
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
I wasn't really with it politically at the time so can't comment with any certainty. But I do wonder if the rates revaluation hit the wealthier areas badly (shock at realising how much things had been allowed to swing in their favour and then the correction) - hence the 1987 result. Elderly widow in large stone villa sort of thing. But it was mitigated when the poll tax made massive cuts in bills, hence the 1992 revival. The poll tax hit the poorer areas disproportionately but they were already voting Labour anyway ...?
So we can assume that council tax will be based on 1991 house valuations for ever?
And in any case you can ask for your house to be revalued. (The risk is if it goes up - and then your neighbours' might also ...).
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
I believe Andrew loves a mask.
He looks a bit nervous there, Andrew. It's like he's arrived, looked around, and realized he's the only one WITHOUT a mask.
And it doesn't look like Pizza Express to me either.
"...like the shy one at some orgy..." Leonard Cohen
The biggest gap in the reporting of the case of the hour is any attempt to explain why the jury did what they did.
My first thought would be -
1) An explanation of the legal definition of murder and manslaughter in England. 2) The arguments used by protection and defense. 3) Analyse why the above could have led to the decision. If the decision doesn't follow from the above, add speculation {here}
This would require a legal expert who can translate to human. But they exist.
I have not found any such analysis, yet. Please feel free to point one out.
I would pay for that, I think.
We don't know - as Cyclefree points out, we can't have an inforrmed opinion without having heard all the evidence and made assessments of the peoplegiving it. However, a semi-informed shot:
1. Definitions are here: https://www.bcl.com/services/murder-manslaughter/ 2. The prosecution argued that they would have been aware that the policeman was tangled up in the rope, but pressed ahead anyway, intending to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As evidence that they were aware, they had a bodycam video showing one of the three looking in the direction of the entrapped officer, and swerving as they drove away, which they suggest was a sign that they were trying to shake off his body. Common sense suggests that if they knew they would reasonably expect to cause death or grievous harm.
The defence argued that the defendants were unaware that the officer was tangled up and in the general panic a recorded glance was insufficient evidence. The swerve could simply have been panicky driving as they rushed away. If one accepts that they didn't know, though, then even the manslaughter charge would fail, so the jury didn't accept the defence case.
3. The jury might have accepted that there was not evidence of intent beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively the swerve might be evidence that they did know the officer was trapped and were trying to shake him off (which argues against "intending to kill him or cause him grievous harm"). They might also have felt thjat in panic people act without thinking it through, and that they were simply bent on getting away without really thinking about the officer one way or the other. All of these seem to me reasonable possibilities - without having been at the trial I'm not sure hoiw reasonable.
The public is outraged because the victim was a respected police officer and the defendants are tearaway criminals. These facts make it more upsetting but should not affect the verdict - the nature of the people involved does not change the definition of murder.
Where are the younger members of the UK Royal family they should be out and about, wearing their masks, leading by example. The odd unannounced visit to Tesco for example
Not up to date with the ins and outs of the Windsors but I thought the only popular ones live overseas these days?
Their planned upcoming book will only feed a media frenzy that I thought they did not like. Presumably it will only be of interest for someme tawdry anecdotes of various royals being mean to Harry and Meghan, up to and including Her Majesty.
They don't like the media - they do like money. Which way do you think this will go?
... Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
Would that be when England is finally independent? What about that little extra bit to the west known as "Wales"? Or is that merely Extreme Western England these days?
Well, I'd heard that the word Welsh derives from a word meaning, essentially, 'foreign', so it wouldn't be far off if that is true.
It does - more specifically thw [edit] Anglosaxon word for the original Britons, as also in Cornwall/Cornwelsh. Also with overtones of slave.
Hence, too, if I am not much mistaken, William Wallace.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
No, not wrong, because my point depended solely on this case raising the *real possibility* of error, and jury tampering. I say and imply nothing about the particular facts of the case. Perhaps try to sound a touch less patronising, and to disabuse yourself of the delusion that you are the only professional lawyer in the village?
The biggest gap in the reporting of the case of the hour is any attempt to explain why the jury did what they did.
My first thought would be -
1) An explanation of the legal definition of murder and manslaughter in England. 2) The arguments used by protection and defense. 3) Analyse why the above could have led to the decision. If the decision doesn't follow from the above, add speculation {here}
This would require a legal expert who can translate to human. But they exist.
I have not found any such analysis, yet. Please feel free to point one out.
I would pay for that, I think.
We don't know - as Cyclefree points out, we can't have an inforrmed opinion without having heard all the evidence and made assessments of the peoplegiving it. However, a semi-informed shot:
1. Definitions are here: https://www.bcl.com/services/murder-manslaughter/ 2. The prosecution argued that they would have been aware that the policeman was tangled up in the rope, but pressed ahead anyway, intending to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As evidence that they were aware, they had a bodycam video showing one of the three looking in the direction of the entrapped officer, and swerving as they drove away, which they suggest was a sign that they were trying to shake off his body. Common sense suggests that if they knew they would reasonably expect to cause death or grievous harm.
The defence argued that the defendants were unaware that the officer was tangled up and in the general panic a recorded glance was insufficient evidence. The swerve could simply have been panicky driving as they rushed away. If one accepts that they didn't know, though, then even the manslaughter charge would fail, so the jury didn't accept the defence case.
3. The jury might have accepted that there was not evidence of intent beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively the swerve might be evidence that they did know the officer was trapped and were trying to shake him off (which argues against "intending to kill him or cause him grievous harm"). They might also have felt thjat in panic people act without thinking it through, and that they were simply bent on getting away without really thinking about the officer one way or the other. All of these seem to me reasonable possibilities - without having been at the trial I'm not sure hoiw reasonable.
The public is outraged because the victim was a respected police officer and the defendants are tearaway criminals. These facts make it more upsetting but should not affect the verdict - the nature of the people involved does not change the definition of murder.
The trial was public. All the evidence given, all the arguments...
Yet with reporters in the courtroom - we don't know.
All of the information is available. Lots and lots of facts to work with.
A specialist reporter could have done what I suggested.
But technical information is too hard, not Down-Wiv-Der-Kids*, etc.
Much like the reporting on COVID19.
*In the Prince Charles disco dancing sense of Down-Wiv-Der-Kids - a toe curling attempt to be hip.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Anyone who has any personal knowledge of the French or Italian criminal justice systems (and I do) would not so casually assume they are better or dismiss the value of ours - even if there are things which could be done to improve it.
Anyway off to do some painting.
And you assume that no one else does, on what grounds?
O/T - I wonder how much U.K. perceptions of the safety of foreign (particularly EU) travel is being skewed by the testing regimes? How many EU countries are running equivalent to the UK’s “pillar 2” testing programme? France is apparently now reporting 1000+ cases a day. And these are ALL “in hospitals”.
I find one of the big frustrations about this is whole situation is the lack of availability of genuinely comparative information. Occasionally articles surface in the press, but after a few caveats are cited they then seem to decide it’s all too difficult and give up.
Very, very true. We will get a much better picture of the cases part of the epidemic in the UK when we get data separated between Pillar 1 and 2.
As to international comparisons - well, good luck...
The biggest gap in the reporting of the case of the hour is any attempt to explain why the jury did what they did.
My first thought would be -
1) An explanation of the legal definition of murder and manslaughter in England. 2) The arguments used by protection and defense. 3) Analyse why the above could have led to the decision. If the decision doesn't follow from the above, add speculation {here}
This would require a legal expert who can translate to human. But they exist.
I have not found any such analysis, yet. Please feel free to point one out.
I would pay for that, I think.
We don't know - as Cyclefree points out, we can't have an inforrmed opinion without having heard all the evidence and made assessments of the peoplegiving it. However, a semi-informed shot:
1. Definitions are here: https://www.bcl.com/services/murder-manslaughter/ 2. The prosecution argued that they would have been aware that the policeman was tangled up in the rope, but pressed ahead anyway, intending to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As evidence that they were aware, they had a bodycam video showing one of the three looking in the direction of the entrapped officer, and swerving as they drove away, which they suggest was a sign that they were trying to shake off his body. Common sense suggests that if they knew they would reasonably expect to cause death or grievous harm.
The defence argued that the defendants were unaware that the officer was tangled up and in the general panic a recorded glance was insufficient evidence. The swerve could simply have been panicky driving as they rushed away. If one accepts that they didn't know, though, then even the manslaughter charge would fail, so the jury didn't accept the defence case.
3. The jury might have accepted that there was not evidence of intent beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively the swerve might be evidence that they did know the officer was trapped and were trying to shake him off (which argues against "intending to kill him or cause him grievous harm"). They might also have felt thjat in panic people act without thinking it through, and that they were simply bent on getting away without really thinking about the officer one way or the other. All of these seem to me reasonable possibilities - without having been at the trial I'm not sure hoiw reasonable.
The public is outraged because the victim was a respected police officer and the defendants are tearaway criminals. These facts make it more upsetting but should not affect the verdict - the nature of the people involved does not change the definition of murder.
IANAL and did not follow the case but is there not another complication, which is joint enterprise? Derek Bentley and Let Him Have It? If the prosecution did not establish they were all in it together, then doubt as to whether the driver knew what the passenger could see, or whether the passenger could control the driver, might have led to that verdict.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
@NickPalmer my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if they “reasonably expected” their actions to cause death or GBH, what matters is if they intended that result.
If they expected it as a possibility, but recklessly proceeded anyway, that’s still manslaughter not murder, at least in England.
I argued last night that if people want a 3rd degree murder offence like in America, they should lobby the Government to introduce one. Doesn’t make any difference to this case though.
This whole thing comes down to semantics. For example a woman cannot rape a man, but can sexually assault one. They are not a convicted “rapist” but the sentence is still the same.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
@NickPalmer my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if they “reasonably expected” their actions to cause death or GBH, what matters is if they intended that result.
If they expected it as a possibility, but recklessly proceeded anyway, that’s still manslaughter not murder, at least in England.
I argued last night that if people want a 3rd degree murder offence like in America, they should lobby the Government to introduce one. Doesn’t make any difference to this case though.
This is where I think @HYUFD might have a point and a government with a populist Home Secretary and Number 10 already hostile to the courts might decide to throw its backbenchers, newspapers and the public some red meat.
"About 41% of US adults have at least one underlying medical condition that may put them at a higher risk for severe Covid-19 outcomes, according to a new CDC report published Thursday."
@NickPalmer my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if they “reasonably expected” their actions to cause death or GBH, what matters is if they intended that result.
If they expected it as a possibility, but recklessly proceeded anyway, that’s still manslaughter not murder, at least in England.
I argued last night that if people want a 3rd degree murder offence like in America, they should lobby the Government to introduce one. Doesn’t make any difference to this case though.
Does this apply to everything in law? If someone says the N word and didn't intend it to be racist, even though most people reasonably expect it to be a racist word, it's their intention that matters.
In England and Wales, murder is a “specific intention” crime. The defendant must specifically intend to cause death or GBH. Carelessness or recklnessess is not enough. That has always been the case.
Manslaughter can carry a life sentence, just the same as murder. Those arguing against it are simply arguing that it is wrong that the defendants cant be called “murderers”, at least in the eyes of the law. It’s an argument of semantics.
If you think they should be called murderers, we need a 3rd degree murder offence.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
I wonder if any studies have been done comparing the number of miscarriages of justice occurring in various countries using different judicial systems. It would be nice to have some objective evidence one way or the other.
@NickPalmer my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if they “reasonably expected” their actions to cause death or GBH, what matters is if they intended that result.
If they expected it as a possibility, but recklessly proceeded anyway, that’s still manslaughter not murder, at least in England.
I argued last night that if people want a 3rd degree murder offence like in America, they should lobby the Government to introduce one. Doesn’t make any difference to this case though.
Does this apply to everything in law? If someone says the N word and didn't intend it to be racist, even though most people reasonably expect it to be a racist word, it's their intention that matters.
No, there are certain crimes that require specific intention, and others that require intention or recklessness to the result.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
It’s not as ironic as you think. Their argument to the European courts was essentially a point of administrative law, and those are regularly argued to judges without juries here in the UK.
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?
Wait, are you saying that devolution didn't kill Scottish nationalism stone dead?
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.
I have never been a fan of Devolution and still view it as a serious mistake , but it was a response to the rise in nationalism which had already occurred. As far back as October 1974 GE ,the SNP polled 30% of the vote in Scotland - though that did fall away subsequently.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
The sky did not fall in when the Diplock courts were introduced. Nor when we pretty much abolished civil juries in 1933 - and a civil judge can feck up your liberties as a subject just as effectively as a criminal court can, by for instance bankrupting you, taking your children away from you, and making orders for breach of which you can be imprisoned.
Two massive flaws in the jury system have been highlighted - inability to understand points of law, and intimidation. Judge only trials obviate theses difficulties at a stroke, and the countervailing argument is what? that judges are more corruptible, or more likely to act as puppets of the state, than random jurors? That makes no sense even if it is true, because the corruption opportunities are in civil trials and so are the puppet of the state opportunities - as we have repeatedly seen in brexit litigation over the last four years. No juries in that lot in the first place. I honestly don't see what the case for juries actually is, except for a lot of ill-informed historical fustian about Magna Carta.
Edit to clarify that I don't say that the courts in fact acted as puppets of the state in the brexit litigation, only that the opportunity was there.
@IshmaelZ very interesting and thought provoking post, thank you.
I don’t really like criminal law purely because it seems more emotive than civil law, and juries (in my opinion) are more likely to act on emotion, rather than what the law actually is - although curiously potentially not in this case.
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
It was most impressive in retrospect how many remain votes the Tories actually gained in 2017 in Scotland in addition to all the unionist leave votes they gained.
Stirling, East Renfrewshire and Aberdeen South were arguably their most impressive gains and perhaps unlikely to be won back now even if the Tories hold all their existing 6 seats.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
It’s not as ironic as you think. Their argument to the European courts was essentially a point of administrative law, and those are regularly argued to judges without juries here in the UK.
They actually argued this in national courts, fighting extradition. So telling a panel of French judges that panels of judges were against human rights....
IIRC analysis of the results of Diplock courts found *less* miscarriages of justice. Among other things, such courts were far more likely to exclude contaminated evidence/testimony from the prosecution.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
It’s not as ironic as you think. Their argument to the European courts was essentially a point of administrative law, and those are regularly argued to judges without juries here in the UK.
They actually argued this in national courts, fighting extradition. So telling a panel of French judges that panels of judges were against human rights....
IIRC analysis of the results of Diplock courts found *less* miscarriages of justice. Among other things, such courts were far more likely to exclude contaminated evidence/testimony from the prosecution.
I think it makes sense that panels of professional judges are more likely to get things “correct” (although this is all relative) than a bunch of amateurs.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
I wonder if any studies have been done comparing the number of miscarriages of justice occurring in various countries using different judicial systems. It would be nice to have some objective evidence one way or the other.
Difficult because if you are claiming a miscarriage of justice you are discounting the only evidence you are in practice likely to have access to, which is the decision of the court. You could approach it by seeing how often first instance decisions are overturned by appellate courts, but you have serious apple and pear problems as to what degree of doubt isrequired by differing jurisdictions to overturn a decision.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
The use of the term is nigh universally as a criticism, of unwarranted belief in superiority, whereas I suggest it becomes meaningless if used to simply mean something that the only the English do, or almost nobody but the English and those influenced by the English do.
If the use of exceptionalism is not used as a criticism then use of the term is pointless since the argument then becomes 'not many others do it' which is meaningless as that may or may not mean it is wrong, rather than 'not many others do it and the english defend it out of misguided belief in their own exceptionalism'.
In this case the argument was that defending the use of juries by claim to fundamental rights was showing english exceptionalism, as though there is something untoward about different places having different views on fundamental rights, and that the english view must therefore be incorrect as it is not as common. So I think my interpretation of the use of the term being unreasonable broad in this point is not unreasonable.
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?
Wrong on so many levels. No-one commenting sat through every day of the trial and heard the evidence (I assume) nor the judge’s directions on the law nor the summing up.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
I love that that even the concept of support for trial by jury is now being derided as mere english exceptionalism. It's one of those terms which is so overused it is becoming meaningless.
Why? If the claim is made that trial by jury is uniquely English (by origin) and uniquely good, then surely the charge of English exceptionalism is a perfect fit? It doesn't even matter whether the claim is valid or not, because the question then is only whether the exceptionalism is justified or not.
Anyone recall the lawyers for the PIRA arguing that the Diplock courts were against human rights, since there were no juries? Just a panel of judges.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
It’s not as ironic as you think. Their argument to the European courts was essentially a point of administrative law, and those are regularly argued to judges without juries here in the UK.
They actually argued this in national courts, fighting extradition. So telling a panel of French judges that panels of judges were against human rights....
IIRC analysis of the results of Diplock courts found *less* miscarriages of justice. Among other things, such courts were far more likely to exclude contaminated evidence/testimony from the prosecution.
I think it makes sense that panels of professional judges are more likely to get things “correct” (although this is all relative) than a bunch of amateurs.
Oh, quite.
A group of trained professionals, with experience of the shit that can be pulled by the prosecution, out performing a bunch of amateurs off the street.
That really comes under Water! Is! Wet!, Shock! Findings! Show!
That being said, I prefer juries - because of the non-professionalism.
I have encountered the self-licking ice cream effect among lawyers - as with many professionals.
No system that lacks an outside input does a good job. The family court stuff in the UK went that way and I have personally seen the resultant detachment from reality on the part of "the professionals".
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 entered a supermarket at 4.30 yesterday afternoon without wearing a mask. Almost immediately the security guy at the entrance asked if I had a mask , and indicated that they were mandatory when I stated I had none. I went on to explain that on two separate occasions in the course of the last week I had spoken to retail assistants there regarding what was expected of customers suffering from respiratory conditions. , and that on the second occasion I had been clearly advised that no mask would be required as condition of entry. I showed him my inhaler - and he then allowed me to continue without further interruption.
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.
The problem wasn't introducing the poll tax in Scotland. It was then not introducing it in England. Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
Other way round I think - it was not introducing it in England (which had not had a rates revaluation) BEFORE Scotland (which had), or at least at the same time, which went down very badly. Edit - also, on top of the obvious unfairness of the tax itself. But I was not (politically) very aware at the time abd others on PB may know better.
Yet in 1992 the number of Conservative MPs increased in Scotland.
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
I wasn't really with it politically at the time so can't comment with any certainty. But I do wonder if the rates revaluation hit the wealthier areas badly (shock at realising how much things had been allowed to swing in their favour and then the correction) - hence the 1987 result. Elderly widow in large stone villa sort of thing. But it was mitigated when the poll tax made massive cuts in bills, hence the 1992 revival. The poll tax hit the poorer areas disproportionately but they were already voting Labour anyway ...?
So we can assume that council tax will be based on 1991 house valuations for ever?
And in any case you can ask for your house to be revalued. (The risk is if it goes up - and then your neighbours' might also ...).
But any upward change doesn’t take effect until the house is next sold.
In England and Wales, murder is a “specific intention” crime. The defendant must specifically intend to cause death or GBH. Carelessness or recklnessess is not enough. That has always been the case.
Manslaughter can carry a life sentence, just the same as murder. Those arguing against it are simply arguing that it is wrong that the defendants cant be called “murderers”, at least in the eyes of the law. It’s an argument of semantics.
If you think they should be called murderers, we need a 3rd degree murder offence.
I think the semantic point is a fair one, if unlikely to mollify the relatives of the victims. We shall have to see what the punishment ends up being, but if it is round about what you might get for a murder, thre isn't actually that much difference.
Comments
However that tallies with my experience yesterday.
It is astonishing how it happened overnight.
And yes, they could get life, with a minimum term before parole. AIUI, a life sentence means just that, although one can be paroled. Which, as I understand it, is different from being on licence, in that any further offence can result in recall to prison.
I believe the defence case was that the accused was not aware of what was happening, which would support acquital; however, having found that they were aware (which presumably they did because no acquital) I think most people would have inferred intent.
Nevertheless I think people underestimate how long 10 years (for example) actually is. There is a reason the minimum tariff for premeditated murder is frequently only 20 years.
I find one of the big frustrations about this is whole situation is the lack of availability of genuinely comparative information. Occasionally articles surface in the press, but after a few caveats are cited they then seem to decide it’s all too difficult and give up.
It was then not introducing it in England.
Contrary to Scottish political folklore, it was not the poll tax protests that finished the poll tax, but the Lib Dem by-election victories in Tory strongholds.
So what could happen is these men get LIFE but with a minimum term lower than it would have been if it were a murder conviction. 8 years, say, instead of 15. Or 12 years instead of 20. This sort of calculus.
The PR for the public in going this route would perhaps be better. I sense a strong need to hear the word LIFE in the sentence. And for this to be the headline. "PC killers get Life."
Let's see. It's a very nasty case.
And it doesn't look like Pizza Express to me either.
The main division in the UK isn't between these cultural groups - most of the population is small-c conservative - it's between its constituent parts. This remains true, despite the unexpectedly strong performance by Labour in 2017 - Labour would never have done as well as it did if more attention had been devoted to Corbyn and his policies, and if there had been any serious expectation that he might actually win - and still Theresa May finished more than 50 seats clear.
As we all know, the last genuinely left-wing UK Government was elected in October 1974, and that was only with a three seat majority. Today, nearly half-a-century later, it's only the strength of Scottish Nationalism that confuses the overall picture. At the last General Election the Tories won a bigger share of the popular vote in England than the SNP did in Scotland, and a majority of over 150. There are good reasons for this, and they go way beyond arguments over Europe.
The swing voters of provincial England will put Labour back into bat when three conditions are fulfilled: when they are fed-up with the Tories and think it's time for a change, when they want more care and attention paid to public services, and when they feel sufficiently reassured that Labour isn't a threat to their prosperity and security. The notion that there's also a massive constituency of voters out there who are mad-keen on ripping down contentious statues, paying reparations for slavery, cutting police budgets to free up money for more social workers and diversity officers, and inviting every migrant who turns up at Calais to come over and settle here is for the birds.
It is surely worth considering the possibility that there is, in fact, no American-style "culture war" in Britain, other than between attention seeking campaigners and media outlets? Our major divisions take the form of constitutional battles over where accountability and power should lie. One of those, the EU question, has been settled; once Scotland and Northern Ireland are also resolved then we ought finally to have some peace and quiet for a change.
So, not this guy then?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-seen-liability-monarchy-22383335?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
So it looks like the rates revaluation effect in 1987 was far more negative than the poll tax effect in 1992.
Lets face it whatever the Conservative government did at that time was going to go down very badly with many Scots.
The real mystery was why Scotland did get its rates revaluation in 1986 when those in England & Wales in 1978 and 1983 had been cancelled.
But our relationship with the EU and indeed the world is nowhere near settled, we have just said what we dont want from EU, China and the US, not defined what we do want and is actually available. Very unsure as to the existence of any resolution to Scotland or Northern Ireland that will resolve them, let alone our ability to identify and agree on such a solution, and then implement it well.
The upside of the internet is that certain specialist news sources have popped up - a classic example is Nasaspaceflight.com. Their reporting (on all things relating to space) is extremely accurate, extremely technical and is backed by a vast amount of inside information.
Arstechnica is another one - itself an aggregator, but a great place to find talent on various issues.
Back to the hot topic of the day - and yet not off topic.
The biggest gap in the reporting of the case of the hour is any attempt to explain why the jury did what they did.
My first thought would be -
1) An explanation of the legal definition of murder and manslaughter in England.
2) The arguments used by protection and defense.
3) Analyse why the above could have led to the decision. If the decision doesn't follow from the above, add speculation {here}
This would require a legal expert who can translate to human. But they exist.
I have not found any such analysis, yet. Please feel free to point one out.
I would pay for that, I think.
I don’t have the time to deal with this today so I will just leave these 2 articles here and will come back later to sweep up the brickbats.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/24/12-good-men/
https://barry-walsh.co.uk/on-juries-and-experts/
It wasn't removed when Scotland objected.
It was removed when England objected.
Anyway off to do some painting.
How so?
Well, one of the offshoots of Blairs policies was that communities should be handled separately. Individually.
So we saw differential law enforcement. No need to grind over the old ground. But the essence was that the police withdrew from certain communities. This was matched by withdrawals by other state agencies - social workers, schools. Even building inspectors....
The effect was, of course, that the worst elements in those communities took control. It is a standard social observation, that in any tight nit ethnic community, the criminal element will abuse their own first. Then outsiders, when they have grown big and bold enough.
So we have children growing up, in an environment where the rules of the external world are irrelevant.
It rather reminds me of a scene in Heinlein's Starship Troopers - the book
Missed from the useless film, a teacher discusses with the class why the old world fell. He points out an unfairness of the old system - children allowed to become criminals. No punishment. Until one day, they graduated to murder and got hit by the force of the State...
For those in such communities - for the law abiding majority - the external* world is very far away. Which explains such things as low levels of cooperation with Track and Trace, gaps in the crime maps**, the absence of reporting of illegal wages and conditions in factories....
The abandonment works both ways - the system has withdrawn. Which means they are not there when *needed*
Such a system of isolated communities abuses the communities themselves. It creates an Apartheid system - of second class citizens not able to fully access the facilities of the state. Taken advantage of by whatever Community Leaders*** float to the top.
*Sometime termed the "white" world by campaigners.
**When crime maps were introduced, it became clear that either some communities have no crime. Or that they don't report it.
***Coming from Northern Ireland, I mentally replace Community Leader with "Fascist Criminal Torture Murderer Racist With Table Manners".
I agree, the decline in support between 83 and 87 needs some explanation though. It can't have been the Community Charge, because it wasn't a big issue till 1988/9 (though it was, unnoticed, in the 87 manifesto). Mrs Thatcher was still the same person she had been in 1983. And I doubt it was the privatisation of British Gas.
As to what it was, I genuinely don't know.
Either way, suggesting it was just Mrs Thatcher and the reform of local taxation is clearly much too simplistic.
1. Definitions are here: https://www.bcl.com/services/murder-manslaughter/
2. The prosecution argued that they would have been aware that the policeman was tangled up in the rope, but pressed ahead anyway, intending to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As evidence that they were aware, they had a bodycam video showing one of the three looking in the direction of the entrapped officer, and swerving as they drove away, which they suggest was a sign that they were trying to shake off his body. Common sense suggests that if they knew they would reasonably expect to cause death or grievous harm.
The defence argued that the defendants were unaware that the officer was tangled up and in the general panic a recorded glance was insufficient evidence. The swerve could simply have been panicky driving as they rushed away. If one accepts that they didn't know, though, then even the manslaughter charge would fail, so the jury didn't accept the defence case.
3. The jury might have accepted that there was not evidence of intent beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively the swerve might be evidence that they did know the officer was trapped and were trying to shake him off (which argues against "intending to kill him or cause him grievous harm"). They might also have felt thjat in panic people act without thinking it through, and that they were simply bent on getting away without really thinking about the officer one way or the other. All of these seem to me reasonable possibilities - without having been at the trial I'm not sure hoiw reasonable.
The public is outraged because the victim was a respected police officer and the defendants are tearaway criminals. These facts make it more upsetting but should not affect the verdict - the nature of the people involved does not change the definition of murder.
"Shut down the country and start over to contain Covid-19, US medical experts urge political leaders"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/23/health/shutdown-us-contain-coronavirus-wellness/index.html
Yet with reporters in the courtroom - we don't know.
All of the information is available. Lots and lots of facts to work with.
A specialist reporter could have done what I suggested.
But technical information is too hard, not Down-Wiv-Der-Kids*, etc.
Much like the reporting on COVID19.
*In the Prince Charles disco dancing sense of Down-Wiv-Der-Kids - a toe curling attempt to be hip.
As to international comparisons - well, good luck...
If they expected it as a possibility, but recklessly proceeded anyway, that’s still manslaughter not murder, at least in England.
I argued last night that if people want a 3rd degree murder offence like in America, they should lobby the Government to introduce one. Doesn’t make any difference to this case though.
They argued this in front of the European courts. In front of panels of judges. With no juries.....
"About 41% of US adults have at least one underlying medical condition that may put them at a higher risk for severe Covid-19 outcomes, according to a new CDC report published Thursday."
Manslaughter can carry a life sentence, just the same as murder. Those arguing against it are simply arguing that it is wrong that the defendants cant be called “murderers”, at least in the eyes of the law. It’s an argument of semantics.
If you think they should be called murderers, we need a 3rd degree murder offence.
Two massive flaws in the jury system have been highlighted - inability to understand points of law, and intimidation. Judge only trials obviate theses difficulties at a stroke, and the countervailing argument is what? that judges are more corruptible, or more likely to act as puppets of the state, than random jurors? That makes no sense even if it is true, because the corruption opportunities are in civil trials and so are the puppet of the state opportunities - as we have repeatedly seen in brexit litigation over the last four years. No juries in that lot in the first place. I honestly don't see what the case for juries actually is, except for a lot of ill-informed historical fustian about Magna Carta.
Edit to clarify that I don't say that the courts in fact acted as puppets of the state in the brexit litigation, only that the opportunity was there.
I don’t really like criminal law purely because it seems more emotive than civil law, and juries (in my opinion) are more likely to act on emotion, rather than what the law actually is - although curiously potentially not in this case.
Stirling, East Renfrewshire and Aberdeen South were arguably their most impressive gains and perhaps unlikely to be won back now even if the Tories hold all their existing 6 seats.
IIRC analysis of the results of Diplock courts found *less* miscarriages of justice. Among other things, such courts were far more likely to exclude contaminated evidence/testimony from the prosecution.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1286951070296674306?s=20
Peter Hitchens on Any Questions.
Popcorn incoming.
If the use of exceptionalism is not used as a criticism then use of the term is pointless since the argument then becomes 'not many others do it' which is meaningless as that may or may not mean it is wrong, rather than 'not many others do it and the english defend it out of misguided belief in their own exceptionalism'.
In this case the argument was that defending the use of juries by claim to fundamental rights was showing english exceptionalism, as though there is something untoward about different places having different views on fundamental rights, and that the english view must therefore be incorrect as it is not as common. So I think my interpretation of the use of the term being unreasonable broad in this point is not unreasonable.
A group of trained professionals, with experience of the shit that can be pulled by the prosecution, out performing a bunch of amateurs off the street.
That really comes under Water! Is! Wet!, Shock! Findings! Show!
That being said, I prefer juries - because of the non-professionalism.
I have encountered the self-licking ice cream effect among lawyers - as with many professionals.
No system that lacks an outside input does a good job. The family court stuff in the UK went that way and I have personally seen the resultant detachment from reality on the part of "the professionals".
Britain does this pretty well to be fair, for example the concept of “inadmissible evidence” is much less of a thing here than in America.