More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
Look, I don't know what the answer is.
But I do know that we haven't always behaved as well as we might. So we could have let the EU have their Ambassador. It would have cost us nothing, and would have been no more than most other countries do.
I also know that the EU - after behaving appalling badly over vaccines and Northern Ireland -did essentially completely back down.
I'm not suggesting we "take the knee" or anything like that, or even that we agree with things they say. But I do think we can avoid being needlessly antagonistic (see Gove, M).
This is a divorce, and there's always bitterness following a divorce (and probably a desire for the other party to get their comeuppance.) It takes time for the parties to realise they still have to see each other in public, and that the kids need to be brought up.
Yes, the Gove letter was ridiculous, it had absolutely no subtlety or finesse which is what the situation needs.
There are ways to say "fuck off" nicely. That was not one of those ways.
This is the problematic quote afaics: Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors … even by children,” the report said quoting the post.
“Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”
IMV hating someone is hating someone. It doesn't really matter why.
But on the left it is totemic that motive matters more than action. (cf the higher sentences for racist/sexuality motivated crimes in the UK vs generic crimes)
Mens Rea has been part of criminal law for a very long time I think. The motive makes the crime in many cases, not just those involving hate.
Yes, but I was thinking not of Mens Rea, but the fact that you have a higher sentence for beating up a black or gay person (as a hate crime) vs beating up someone because they just happen to be in the area.
For me it's the beating up that is the crime that needs punishing, not the "why".
So, take the Stephen Lawrence murder. For you the racist motivation adds not a jot to the weight of the crime?
No. A black man's life is worth the same as a white man's life (or a man, or woman, of any other colour).
A murder should be punished as such.
Of course, the parole board, in due course, will need to consider the probability of reoffending and might come to a different view at that time.
So consider it thus. The Stephen Lawrence murder involved 2 crimes. The first one was just that - murder. The second one was violating in the most evil way imaginable the very principle you set out here. That a black man's life is worth the same as a white man's. This is the aggravating factor.
And that is the fundamental difference between us.
I punish actions. You criminalise thoughts and beliefs.
To quote Bacon: I do not want to open windows into men’s souls
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
I would describe it as a country with "Close cultural, historical and political links with Britain" (11%), ahead of the EU at 7%.
So's Australia.
If they wanted to say Ireland they should have said Ireland. Its not on the list distinctly.
It occurs to me that the relationship between the EU and the UK is, now, uniquely poisonous in the free world. Why? Because the EU is not neutral or uninterested, vis a vis the UK, it actively wants us to FAIL and SUFFER, so as to discourage any other country from quitting the EU
This is why the EU has reacted with such weird, neurotic insecurity to its relatively poor vaccine performance: because it also says Maybe the Project isn't so great after all. They can't have anyone thinking that, so instead it was: fuck Ireland, draw a border, stop UK vaccine imports, let's make it harder for them
This is also why the EU is being SO obstructive on everything, I can well believe the Tories have made ample mistakes, but it is obvious the EU is being deliberately arsey, wherever and whenever it can. They want Brexit Britain to be a disaster, because they are so insecure over in Brussels.
This presents quite an ongoing problem for the UK. No other democratic entity actively wants the failure of another, as far as I know, especially when it involves two such close and important neighbours as the UK and the EU
What can we do? Either we grovel and hope they grow up, or we become as hostile in return - or worse. Try and undermine them. Or we unite with America and invade them.
The EU wants Brexit to be a failure, partly due to their insecurities, partly to encourage the others... and partly too, because they think that the UK now wants the EU to fail.
Peter Bone doesn't get much publicity here: but in the EU they see a member of Parliament of the ruling party calling for the EU to collapse. That is a story, and it gets peoples' backs up just as much there as "punishment beatings" lines from German MEPs get backs up here.
And then there are things like the EU having an Embassy and an Ambassador. The EU says "hang on, pretty much everywhere else allows us representation, and the UK says f*ck off".
It reminds me a little of a friend of a friend, who changed their name to something utterly absurd. Lots of my friends, said "fuck that, that's really stupid. I'm not changing what I call them". And I said "it doesn't cost me anything, and it's important to them, so I'll call them what they want to be called."
So, yeah, the EU is behaving badly. But this is a co-created relationship.
Good points.
I wasn't sure why we refused to recognise their embassy - the only sensible reason I could think was that we wished to keep it back in to get some small benefit in return when we do give it.
Because we have a view that only countries get full status, not international organisations.
The EU argument that we signed up to it at Lisbon is misleading because we never accredited any representative of an international body as an ambassador
The fact that they go on to question the value of our signature suggests a level of pissed off-ness that is disproportionate
Yeah, but we could also have been politer: allowing their HQ to be called an "Embassy", but not giving the staff diplomatic plates or immunity. It would have probably been accepted without appearing to be a complete snub.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they that someone is black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
On the question of Toryism and cultural conservatism below, there's also the question of what kind of cultural conservatism. Modern British Toryism is increasingly following the American model of battling on cultural 'values', or what may be described as "culture war" hot topics, rather than overtly defending institutions or older models of life. This is unsurprising, as both Tories and Republicans have backed more strongly than the left the tumultuous and unstable logic of globalisation for decades, with the disorientating results that has brought for some people.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
The seriousness of a crime shouldn't depend on the immutable characteristics of the people involved. To think otherwise is anti-enlightenment and anti-rational.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
Unprovoked GBH is unprovoked GBH.
I think unprovoked GBH of someone because they were black ought to be taken extremely seriously.
I think unprovoked GBH for no damn reason or any other should be taken extremely seriously.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
Unprovoked GBH is unprovoked GBH.
I think unprovoked GBH of someone because they were black ought to be taken extremely seriously.
I think unprovoked GBH for no damn reason or any other should be taken extremely seriously.
Don't you? Really?
Eh?
I didn't say anything about not taking unproved GBH for any reason seriously.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
If we're using my scenario (ie there is no drunken fight), then yes, I think that a non-racist attacker receiving a lighter sentence for the same severity of attack is wrong. The crime is just as wicked, the victim just as innocent.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
How many seats would a party based solely on Thatcherite economics - shorn of the cultural conservatism of which the monarchy is the linchpin - actually win these days? How many would Thatcher herself have won? The loss of the institution would be a major blow to the right-of-centre (and perhaps the centre too), including the people who just want lower taxes and don't much care about anything else. It's a bizarre and self-defeating position for anyone not firmly on the left.
The monarchy isn't the linchpin.
The linchpin issues vary from year to year but the monarchy aren't it.
Look at who Thatcher's key ideological ally across the Pond was. She was able to work very well with Reagan and had a similar political outlook and similar cultural issues - though Reagan didn't require a monarch to get his voters out.
With or without the monarchy this country will always have a centre right and cultural conservativism.
The monarchy is far more popular in this country than cutting tax for the rich and cutting public spending is, there has never been a great appetite in this country for laissez faire economics, Thatcher was the exception rather than the rule.
Tradition and cultural conservatism is far more popular. Note too in the US there has not really been a genuinely libertarian President since Reagan
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
Despite what non Tories like you may think the monarchy remains the linchpin of the country, the Queen is merely protecting the Crown and the Crown estate and Prince Charles his tenancies for future generations of tenants to enjoy at low rent
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
Semantics aside, you are agreeing with the notion of giving a lighter sentence to somebody for the same severity of attack, because their underlying motivation is non-racist in nature. That may be legally permissible, but in my opinion is morally wrong.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
There's a huge difference between just "getting on with our own lives" and "lets do X just because it pisses off the EU".
No I think he's in the "let's get on with our lives and if that manages to piss the EU off it's a nice bonus" and as it stands basically anything we're doing is pissing them off. They're in a perpetual state of loathing towards the UK for having the temerity to leave their supposed paradise and now run into the arms of APAC countries and it's old allies instead of staying within their orbit.
The worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK formally enters the CPTPP, joins the "quad" and makes it a "pent" (maybe?) with the US, Japan, Australia and India. For them it completely freezes the EU out of a huge, huge part of world affairs that would only be accessible with the UK as a member because of historic links with that part of the world and a historic alliance with Japan which both parties are looking to formalise again.
The UK was always the EU's gateway to APAC, no other European country has the same interests in the region and now the EU will be left behind in the part of the world that is actually going places. They're left having to do grovelling deals with China and licking Putin's arse.
I have to say, I don't get wound up by the idea of the EU having an Ambassador.
BUT we should say we now only recognise that Ambassador for the country of the European Union. And as such, we would no longer recognise the Ambassadors of the 27 constituents of that new EU country.
Light the blue touch-paper - and retire to a safe distance...
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Mate, really?
You spent most of the last decade talking about the iniquity of our unelected rulers, you've awoken something in the country, the Royals are rightly next in line.
Except they are not our rulers. They are a national asset.
If they're a national asset lets flog them off to the highest bidder.
They're neither.
You don't flog national assets. You give them to the National Trust - which is effectively what they are already.
Gordon Brown says Hi.
Im trying to see how many monarchies there are besides ours. Norway Sweden Denmark to start. Lots more.
Er, are these countries feeling subservient in some way?
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
Semantics aside, you are agreeing with the notion of giving a lighter sentence to somebody for the same severity of attack, because their underlying motivation is non-racist in nature. That may be legally permissible, but in my opinion is morally wrong.
But that isn't how it works! Parliament sets minimum sentences and then certain "aggravating factors" result in higher sentences. If you're unhappy with the minimum sentence then you should campaign for them to be raised.
You cannot have a system with no way for judges to adapt sentences to the circumstances of the offence. You can see the damage of such policies in America.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
It should be renamed as 'Don't effing go there, it is miles away from anywhere and it is bloody freezing with no decent mobile coverageshire.'
It's a couple of years since I was there, but unless it's deteriorated considerably I don't think crappy mobile coverage was part of Aberdeen's barbarism!
Aberdeen has massively improved since the 80s. Most of the ex-pats have either settled down and got families in the area or have buggered off to other parts of the world. The place has loads of great restaurants and entertainment and has a really nice atmosphere - except perhaps around Bridge Street or the Union Gardens.
My biggest complaint is that the number and choice of bookshops has deteriorated over the years. When I first went there 35 years ago there were 3 big bookshops and a fair few second hand and independents. Now there is one Waterstones which has downsized massively in the last couple of years, a couple of (rather good) charity bookshops and two genuine second hand shops - one on Belmont Street and the other out in Old Aberdeen near the University. The city could support far more I think.
Does Aberdeen boast any good restaurants featuring Cajun - Creole - Louisiana cuisine? Am asking because of Aberdeen's role as base for off-shore oil rigs.
When I was a wee loon a US grocers opened up by my primary school to serve the new Americans inflow and was seen as the height of exotic sophistication. The glamour didn't get much past Oreos and Dr Pepper but those were straitened times. A bit later on there was Radar's, a US style diner (chilli burgers & sweetcorn relish!) that was the ultimate teen treat.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
The last time I was assaulted by a group, around 1998 iirc was either racially motivated or completely random. I'm not sure which - a jury with perfect view of the situation (This never went to court) would have been hard pressed to tell which it was. I have no idea if it was a hate crime (Such things weren't really around then) and not sure if it should have affected any theoretical sentence.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
The last time I was assaulted by a group, around 1998 iirc was either racially motivated or completely random. I'm not sure which - a jury with perfect view of the situation (This never went to court) would have been hard pressed to tell which it was. I have no idea if it was a hate crime (Such things weren't really around then) and not sure if it should have affected any theoretical sentence.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
Look, I don't know what the answer is.
But I do know that we haven't always behaved as well as we might. So we could have let the EU have their Ambassador. It would have cost us nothing, and would have been no more than most other countries do.
I also know that the EU - after behaving appalling badly over vaccines and Northern Ireland -did essentially completely back down.
I'm not suggesting we "take the knee" or anything like that, or even that we agree with things they say. But I do think we can avoid being needlessly antagonistic (see Gove, M).
This is a divorce, and there's always bitterness following a divorce (and probably a desire for the other party to get their comeuppance.) It takes time for the parties to realise they still have to see each other in public, and that the kids need to be brought up.
Politically, given how rude the EU was about the UK over vaccines (particularly with their reckless invocation of Article 16) the very least they could expect back from the UK was a stern letter over NI.
They opened Pandora's Box, despite saying they never would.
Gove (and the Government) would have come under ferocious criticism - and risked similar incidents from the EU, in future - had those actions had no consequences.
And let's not forget that the EU threatened to block vaccine exports to us which can, you know, kill people and put us bottom of the list with Russia for punishment. Just because we showed them up.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
How many seats would a party based solely on Thatcherite economics - shorn of the cultural conservatism of which the monarchy is the linchpin - actually win these days? How many would Thatcher herself have won? The loss of the institution would be a major blow to the right-of-centre (and perhaps the centre too), including the people who just want lower taxes and don't much care about anything else. It's a bizarre and self-defeating position for anyone not firmly on the left.
The monarchy isn't the linchpin.
The linchpin issues vary from year to year but the monarchy aren't it.
Look at who Thatcher's key ideological ally across the Pond was. She was able to work very well with Reagan and had a similar political outlook and similar cultural issues - though Reagan didn't require a monarch to get his voters out.
With or without the monarchy this country will always have a centre right and cultural conservativism.
I take the point about Reagan, but on the other hand he, like all US presidents, was himself a kind of monarch during his term, and the American public tends to treat them a bit like one. As head of state and head of the executive, his office came with personal powers that in our system would be called Royal Prerogatives - supreme command of the armed forces, a veto on legislation, virtually limitless pardon powers, and so on. Some of them are even growing, as say Congress' unique constitutional privilege of declaring war has been sidelined in recent decades.
Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. My main point is that it's easy to underestimate how deeply intertwined the monarchy is with just about every aspect of this country, public and private, civic and constitutional, military, charitable, scientific, educational etc. etc. etc., from Royal Assent all the way down to Greys of Alnwick (manufacturers of fishing tackle by royal appointment), and how much quiet stability and continuity they provide. We could get rid of them tomorrow, but it would be a bit like digging up every water main in the land at the same time - an awful lot of trouble for a result that isn't guaranteed to be any better.
People want more than a 'Standard Life', they want a really good life, fantastic life.
Many years ago I knew a few remortgaging companies renamed themselves from [Company Name] Finance to [Company Name] Mortgages.
People saw finance as a high interest loan that gambles with the future, whereas mortgage was seen as an investment/risk free thing because people wanted to own their own home.
It was like the Standard-Triumph motor company dropping the first part of the name.
At creation "Standard" meant "setting the standard" as we still use in for example "Gold Standard". It later came to mean standard, in the sense of ordinary, as in "bog standard".
It is how language evolves, by hyperbolisation, and euphemism.
Not a few decades ago oil tankers in the States used to carry the label "inflammable", but some people apparently confused the "in" with "not" (as in insatiable, inexhaustible, etc) so they changed to using "flammable".
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
The last time I was assaulted by a group, around 1998 iirc was either racially motivated or completely random. I'm not sure which - a jury with perfect view of the situation (This never went to court) would have been hard pressed to tell which it was. I have no idea if it was a hate crime (Such things weren't really around then) and not sure if it should have affected any theoretical sentence.
Take a look. "Offenders operating in groups or gangs" is also an aggravating factor.
Fortunately it was the late 90s and me and my friend just got a bit of a random kicking, we then walked off home. We'd have probably been stabbed these days.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
Semantics aside, you are agreeing with the notion of giving a lighter sentence to somebody for the same severity of attack, because their underlying motivation is non-racist in nature. That may be legally permissible, but in my opinion is morally wrong.
But that isn't how it works! Parliament sets minimum sentences and then certain "aggravating factors" result in higher sentences. If you're unhappy with the minimum sentence then you should campaign for them to be raised.
You cannot have a system with no way for judges to adapt sentences to the circumstances of the offence. You can see the damage of such policies in America.
I am not arguing for no facility for adaptation. I already mentioned that in your case of a fight, there is a mitigating factor.
However, if the crime is identical, the effective result of racism being an aggravating factor is two classes of the same crime, and two classes of victims. A victim should not expect their attacker to receive a lighter sentence merely because he only disliked their hairdo, as opposed to their skin colour. The crime is no less vicious, and no more justified, so why should the sentence be less? If you have a moral justification, as opposed to a legal explanation, that's an interesting discussion. Currently, I haven't seen one.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
The last time I was assaulted by a group, around 1998 iirc was either racially motivated or completely random. I'm not sure which - a jury with perfect view of the situation (This never went to court) would have been hard pressed to tell which it was. I have no idea if it was a hate crime (Such things weren't really around then) and not sure if it should have affected any theoretical sentence.
Take a look. "Offenders operating in groups or gangs" is also an aggravating factor.
I think it's reasonable to consider a racist motivation as an aggravating factor. It's likely the victim was subject to harassment and fear leading up to the assault. There will usually be some reason why the victim got picked out and if it's only because of skin colour that's pretty terrifying.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
For me the biggest moment of peril for the monarchy will be with the Queen's passing
It may surprise some I have been a Republican most all my life but of recent years I have recognised the Queen's value and work ethics, but I am no fan of Charles and Camilla
I predict you will somehow reconcile yourself, as you do to the latest leader of the Conservative party
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
We've lost 7,500 jobs to the EU, and £1 trillion of EU assets. We've put on over 20,000 jobs, and gained an increased share of global forex and asset management in Asia.
We have nearly 50% of the nearly £5 trillion *daily* turnover of global forex. We're a world centre for derivatives trading. We have £10+ trillion of assets under management, and increasing shares of the markets in the Americas and Asia, as the European one has declined.
What we're seeing here is a restructuring. Not the demise of the City, which will find a new global niche, and continue to grow.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
There's a huge difference between just "getting on with our own lives" and "lets do X just because it pisses off the EU".
No I think he's in the "let's get on with our lives and if that manages to piss the EU off it's a nice bonus" and as it stands basically anything we're doing is pissing them off. They're in a perpetual state of loathing towards the UK for having the temerity to leave their supposed paradise and now run into the arms of APAC countries and it's old allies instead of staying within their orbit.
The worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK formally enters the CPTPP, joins the "quad" and makes it a "pent" (maybe?) with the US, Japan, Australia and India. For them it completely freezes the EU out of a huge, huge part of world affairs that would only be accessible with the UK as a member because of historic links with that part of the world and a historic alliance with Japan which both parties are looking to formalise again.
The UK was always the EU's gateway to APAC, no other European country has the same interests in the region and now the EU will be left behind in the part of the world that is actually going places. They're left having to do grovelling deals with China and licking Putin's arse.
Yep, this.
Not sure that's true, TBH. France's still-vast possessions in the South Pacific (by oceanic size if not population) make the EU a major player.
Would that the UK had done the same. So many UK colonies WANTED to remain with the mother country. We cast them off. Mistake. From the Seychelles to Malta.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
You might have a point, but you'll need to pick a better example
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
The last time I was assaulted by a group, around 1998 iirc was either racially motivated or completely random. I'm not sure which - a jury with perfect view of the situation (This never went to court) would have been hard pressed to tell which it was. I have no idea if it was a hate crime (Such things weren't really around then) and not sure if it should have affected any theoretical sentence.
Take a look. "Offenders operating in groups or gangs" is also an aggravating factor.
I think it's reasonable to consider a racist motivation as an aggravating factor. It's likely the victim was subject to harassment and fear leading up to the assault. There will usually be some reason why the victim got picked out and if it's only because of skin colour that's pretty terrifying.
Harassment is a crime, and depending on the nature of the 'fear' inflicted on the victim, there is probably a crime there too - and if they've happened, these should be proven and sentence passed on top of the other.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
It kind of is and it kind of isn't. Lots of people lost their shirts in The Great Recession, and they had a terrible collapse in house prices.
Also, go to Cork. Brand new office buildings and swanky art, but surrounded by utterly moribund and decrepit Victorian tenements - all over the place. Some doing ok, and some doing awfully.
Ireland is like microwaving a meal when you get a bit in the middle really hot and well cooked, but the rest is frigid and inedible.
It should be renamed as 'Don't effing go there, it is miles away from anywhere and it is bloody freezing with no decent mobile coverageshire.'
It's a couple of years since I was there, but unless it's deteriorated considerably I don't think crappy mobile coverage was part of Aberdeen's barbarism!
Aberdeen has massively improved since the 80s. Most of the ex-pats have either settled down and got families in the area or have buggered off to other parts of the world. The place has loads of great restaurants and entertainment and has a really nice atmosphere - except perhaps around Bridge Street or the Union Gardens.
My biggest complaint is that the number and choice of bookshops has deteriorated over the years. When I first went there 35 years ago there were 3 big bookshops and a fair few second hand and independents. Now there is one Waterstones which has downsized massively in the last couple of years, a couple of (rather good) charity bookshops and two genuine second hand shops - one on Belmont Street and the other out in Old Aberdeen near the University. The city could support far more I think.
Does Aberdeen boast any good restaurants featuring Cajun - Creole - Louisiana cuisine? Am asking because of Aberdeen's role as base for off-shore oil rigs.
When I was a wee loon a US grocers opened up by my primary school to serve the new Americans inflow and was seen as the height of exotic sophistication. The glamour didn't get much past Oreos and Dr Pepper but those were straitened times. A bit later on there was Radar's, a US style diner (chilli burgers & sweetcorn relish!) that was the ultimate teen treat.
Oreos and Dr Pepper - an explosive mixture, culturally and otherwise!
The Yang to the Ying (or visa versa) of American imperialism.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
For someone who melts down regularly about Covid, you seem very relaxed about an unvaccinated population with a completely open border to the UK. It's not just being 'nice' it's self interest.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
Dartmoor is on fire just now which adds a bit of interest to life. The River Tavy is between me and it happily.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
The entire argument is moot. By the time this country can begin to think properly about selling or donating spares, the EU programme should be fully operational. And even if it wasn't I doubt that the Irish would accept an offer of help anyway.
The best place to start is probably with asking the Commonwealth realms if they would be interested.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
There's a huge difference between just "getting on with our own lives" and "lets do X just because it pisses off the EU".
No I think he's in the "let's get on with our lives and if that manages to piss the EU off it's a nice bonus" and as it stands basically anything we're doing is pissing them off. They're in a perpetual state of loathing towards the UK for having the temerity to leave their supposed paradise and now run into the arms of APAC countries and it's old allies instead of staying within their orbit.
The worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK formally enters the CPTPP, joins the "quad" and makes it a "pent" (maybe?) with the US, Japan, Australia and India. For them it completely freezes the EU out of a huge, huge part of world affairs that would only be accessible with the UK as a member because of historic links with that part of the world and a historic alliance with Japan which both parties are looking to formalise again.
The UK was always the EU's gateway to APAC, no other European country has the same interests in the region and now the EU will be left behind in the part of the world that is actually going places. They're left having to do grovelling deals with China and licking Putin's arse.
Yep, this.
Not sure that's true, TBH. France's still-vast possessions in the South Pacific (by oceanic size if not population) make the EU a major player.
Would that the UK had done the same. So many UK colonies WANTED to remain with the mother country. We cast them off. Mistake. From the Seychelles to Malta.
They've got French Polynesia and New Caledonia (just, they keep trying to vote to Leave), but that's small potatoes. Half a million at best? They're, like, an eight of New Zealand, and scattered to the seven winds.
Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana are more meaty, but they aren't in the APAC region.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Yes and in the case I mentioned the only thing they said at sentencing was that the victim perceived it as racially motivated. There was no evidence at all guy opened his front door to find some grafitting it and lashed straight out. No evidence was given apart from the spray painters assertion. You can spout oh its not the law all you want but people see the difference between what actually happens and what theoretically happens.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
Dartmoor is on fire just now which adds a bit of interest to life. The River Tavy is between me and it happily.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Yes and in the case I mentioned the only thing they said at sentencing was that the victim perceived it as racially motivated. There was no evidence at all guy opened his front door to find some grafitting it and lashed straight out. No evidence was given apart from the spray painters assertion. You can spout oh its not the law all you want but people see the difference between what actually happens and what theoretically happens.
With all due respect I suspect you may be biased on how much of an angel "your mate" is.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
Our current system is a complete disaster - which is why successive governments of all colours keep adding more and more reasons for aggrevation, which just leaves everyone else exposed and naked when they're the victim.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I’m conflicted about the idea of helping Ireland. Obviously, for two reasons it’s sensible - (1) we have an open land border with them and (2) we need to improve relations with them.
But it would probably drive the EU to even further flights of hysteria. They might even order Ireland to refuse the vaccines if they were offered.
So on the whole, I am inclined to think that when we’ve vaccinated our own population we should look to help those countries that cannot afford them or will have trouble obtaining them. Some of the poorer countries in South America might benefit from them most.
And I certainly strongly believe that we should not be ‘giving’ them to any country that can afford to pay. Why should we subsidise say, a country as wealthy as France when it is their parsimony and lethargy that’s got them into this mess?
If it pisses the EU off we should definitely do it.
This is the feedback loop that I worry about: they behave poorly, we stick our fingers up at them, they get more pissed off and behave even worse...
Isn't this like training a toddler?
Good behaviour, reward. Bad behaviour, punishment or censure.
I'm wholly up for positive engagement with the EU. But they need to know that if they act like dicks then we'll act like dicks too. So they need to start acting reasonably for a constructive relationship.
I've honestly lost all "fear" of the EU. The country hasn't collapsed (and it won't collapse) - even with a pretty hard Brexit life is going on pretty much the same as before for me and the vast majority of people here. It's fine. Meanwhile their paranoid, insecure, febrile and totally OTT reaction to us doing better on vacinnes to them tells me they're very insecure and rather scared - which means they're secretly far weaker than they let on. Chortle.
So, yeah - do your worst EU. When you've grown up and got over yourselves (not least because no-one else on the continent wants to leave, or seriously would leave - even if we totally knocked it out the park - because it wouldn't make sense) then we can talk as constructive neighbours who help each other out.
OK.
But what if the EU is thinking the way you're thinking?
What if they think they are merely replying to our provocations in kind?
Take the Michael Gove letter a week ago. In tone I thought that was needlessly antagonistic, and could easily have said exactly the same things in a more diplomatic way. It reminded me of Trump demanding that the Germans "paid" their 2%. You get, as they say, more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'm not saying the EU are behaving well. They're clearly not.
But this is not just a case of us only responding to them. And it is not a case that only they can lower the tension. That's the logic of the Northern Ireland Troubles where each offence causes a retaliation, and it's always the other guy who needs to stand down.
The difference being we have no interest in 'punishing' the EU and it does not drive our policy towards them. The opposite is true for the EU. So you are back to having to choose between letting them carry on that way and trying to mollify them (which won't work) or deciding they are not worth the hassle and getting on with our own lives.
There's a huge difference between just "getting on with our own lives" and "lets do X just because it pisses off the EU".
No I think he's in the "let's get on with our lives and if that manages to piss the EU off it's a nice bonus" and as it stands basically anything we're doing is pissing them off. They're in a perpetual state of loathing towards the UK for having the temerity to leave their supposed paradise and now run into the arms of APAC countries and it's old allies instead of staying within their orbit.
The worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK formally enters the CPTPP, joins the "quad" and makes it a "pent" (maybe?) with the US, Japan, Australia and India. For them it completely freezes the EU out of a huge, huge part of world affairs that would only be accessible with the UK as a member because of historic links with that part of the world and a historic alliance with Japan which both parties are looking to formalise again.
The UK was always the EU's gateway to APAC, no other European country has the same interests in the region and now the EU will be left behind in the part of the world that is actually going places. They're left having to do grovelling deals with China and licking Putin's arse.
Yep, this.
Not sure that's true, TBH. France's still-vast possessions in the South Pacific (by oceanic size if not population) make the EU a major player.
Would that the UK had done the same. So many UK colonies WANTED to remain with the mother country. We cast them off. Mistake. From the Seychelles to Malta.
The difference is that our friends in APAC want us to be involved while France is generally seen as a nuisance in the region and Macron sucking off Xi hasn't exactly made countries feel better about France.
Matthew Lynn points out that a game of tit-for-tat is not necessarily one that's stacked in the EU's favour.
Less than two months into Brexit it is already becoming clear that the European Union is intent on rewiring its financial system so that the City of London is outside the loop. The most lucrative part of our economy, on which tens of thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenues depend, looks in a perilous position.
True, the UK may not be able to stop that. After all, the negotiations are almost over and the EU doesn't care what we think anyway. But hold on. If there is going to be fierce competition for financial business there are plenty of ways the UK can hit back on behalf of the City.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
For someone who melts down regularly about Covid, you seem very relaxed about an unvaccinated population with a completely open border to the UK. It's not just being 'nice' it's self interest.
So we close the border on the grounds of "public health". Seven different problems: sorted
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
Dartmoor is on fire just now which adds a bit of interest to life. The River Tavy is between me and it happily.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
Dartmoor is on fire just now which adds a bit of interest to life. The River Tavy is between me and it happily.
On fire?!?!
They burn large areas of bracken in winter. Sometimes it gets out of control. A regular thing
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Yes and in the case I mentioned the only thing they said at sentencing was that the victim perceived it as racially motivated. There was no evidence at all guy opened his front door to find some grafitting it and lashed straight out. No evidence was given apart from the spray painters assertion. You can spout oh its not the law all you want but people see the difference between what actually happens and what theoretically happens.
With all due respect I suspect you may be biased on how much of an angel "your mate" is.
With all due respect you might be biased about believing the system always works as it should. There is a good reason why most people think the law is an ass
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
Our current system is a complete disaster - which is why successive governments of all colours keep adding more and more reasons for aggrevation, which just leaves everyone else exposed and naked when they're the victim.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
You keep writing things that are not relevant.
Nobody has said that there is any justification for unproved GBH. Nobody has said it isn't incredibly serious. Nobody is saying such a thing shouldn't receive a heavy sentence.
For some reason you're projecting your frustration from the justice system personally letting you down on some unrelated point about whether racial motivation should be an aggravating factor. It has literally nothing to do with it.
You want tougher sentences. Fine. But that's a completely separate argument.
Im trying to see how many monarchies there are besides ours. Norway Sweden Denmark to start. Lots more.
Er, are these countries feeling subservient in some way?
Lefties need to try harder
The one truly successful monarchy is the Netherlands, IMO. Somehow, despite being Croesus rich, owning palaces, art collections and so on, they manage to present themselves as just another Dutch family. The current King is brash, his mother the previous Queen is excessively nosy, the father struggled with mental health issues. but these foibles just make them look more natural
Hate crimes/sentencing: isn't this partly because such a crime might encourage other racists etc. to follow suit? A light sentence for a random attack probably wouldn't spur on other would-be random attackers? So a message needs to be sent that this is particularly unacceptable, even though the specific act itself is no worse?
Same probably applies on the victim side of the coin.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Why is it more serious murdering someone because they are black more serious than murdering someone in exactly the same way because they are a goth?
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Very many people strongly disagree with you. We believe that all murders are equally bad. Why? Because all human beings are equal. You cannot say that one murder is worse than another without implying that another is less serious. It's a zero sum game in this case.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
If it is reported to be a hate crime that is what you will get prosecuted as and whether it is or not becomes simply a matter of one persons word against another. There is no way to prove it was not racially motivated. I know someone who ended up with a stiff sentence for doing just that. He thumped the guy because he was spray painting his front door. Victim claimed it was because of racism. Jury convicted of gbh and judge sentenced it as racially motivated being an aggravating factor so yes in practise the cps and police accept it as hate crime on the word of the victim.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Yes and in the case I mentioned the only thing they said at sentencing was that the victim perceived it as racially motivated. There was no evidence at all guy opened his front door to find some grafitting it and lashed straight out. No evidence was given apart from the spray painters assertion. You can spout oh its not the law all you want but people see the difference between what actually happens and what theoretically happens.
With all due respect I suspect you may be biased on how much of an angel "your mate" is.
With all due respect you might be biased about believing the system always works as it should. There is a good reason why most people think the law is an ass
I don't believe the system always works at all. I'm not sure why you think that.
However, I don't believe any of these issues are related to whether a crime being racially motivated should be an aggravating factor, amongst at least 20-30 other aggravating factors.
You seem to be arguing that we should have higher evidential burden for such an allegation and I wouldn't disagree.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
But why, once again, are you confusing the issue by adding a genuine mitigating factor to one side? It doesn't show much faith in your argument that you aren't using an example where all other things are equal.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a black guy - he hates black guys, he shot him.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a guy, he wanted to know what it would be like to kill someone, he shot him.
(Bit sexist that it's a man, but hey)
You think the former should get a stiffer sentence (or to put it another way, that the latter should get a lighter sentence). I can't see any moral justification for that.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
The fact that you keep resorting to a fight that got out of hand as your alternative rather says it all.
A fight that got out of hand is not unprovoked and ought to be mitigation.
The Yorkshire Ripper didn't murder anyone because they were black or gay, did that make his crimes less serious? Murder is murder and without mitigation it is as serious as it gets - you don't get "more serious".
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Do you think hate crime legislation should be extended to attacks motivated by the way someone dresses ?
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
Our current system is a complete disaster - which is why successive governments of all colours keep adding more and more reasons for aggrevation, which just leaves everyone else exposed and naked when they're the victim.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
You keep writing things that are not relevant.
Nobody has said that there is any justification for unproved GBH. Nobody has said it isn't incredibly serious. Nobody is saying such a thing shouldn't receive a heavy sentence.
For some reason you're projecting your frustration from the justice system personally letting you down on some unrelated point about whether racial motivation should be an aggravating factor. It has literally nothing to do with it.
You want tougher sentences. Fine. But that's a completely separate argument.
I want consistent sentences. I want sentences to be consistently applied and not just only to be applied when they tick a box.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Why is it more serious murdering someone because they are black more serious than murdering someone in exactly the same way because they are a goth?
I don't think it is. I believe that targeting someone for being a member of ANY GROUP should be an aggravating factor, which isn't too far away from what @Philip_Thompson was already arguing.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
Our current system is a complete disaster - which is why successive governments of all colours keep adding more and more reasons for aggrevation, which just leaves everyone else exposed and naked when they're the victim.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
You keep writing things that are not relevant.
Nobody has said that there is any justification for unproved GBH. Nobody has said it isn't incredibly serious. Nobody is saying such a thing shouldn't receive a heavy sentence.
For some reason you're projecting your frustration from the justice system personally letting you down on some unrelated point about whether racial motivation should be an aggravating factor. It has literally nothing to do with it.
You want tougher sentences. Fine. But that's a completely separate argument.
I want consistent sentences. I want sentences to be consistently applied and not just only to be applied when they tick a box.
Look at America to see the disaster which follows such policies.
So you support the principle of a hereditary head of state then why not a hereditary Prime Minister?
The Queen's various tax dodges and the Prince of Wales anti-Thatcherite policies of not allowing people to own their own homes should be opposed by us all.
Believe it or not I personally know quite a few people on Duchy land- Dartmoor in particular - who like the quasi-feudal relationship. It means the Prince of Wales has to sort shit out when something major goes wrong. The same way renting is, in some ways, less hassle than owning. My boiler's gone: you fix it.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
Dartmoor is on fire just now which adds a bit of interest to life. The River Tavy is between me and it happily.
On fire?!?!
They burn large areas of bracken in winter. Sometimes it gets out of control. A regular thing
Im trying to see how many monarchies there are besides ours. Norway Sweden Denmark to start. Lots more.
Er, are these countries feeling subservient in some way?
Lefties need to try harder
The one truly successful monarchy is the Netherlands, IMO. Somehow, despite being Croesus rich, owning palaces, art collections and so on, they manage to present themselves as just another Dutch family. The current King is brash, his mother the previous Queen is excessively nosy, the father struggled with mental health issues. but these foibles just make them look more natural
That's the "one truly successful monarchy"??
Let's look at the top 20 countries by GDP per capita
12 of the top 20 are monarchies, Luxembourg to Australia, Qatar to Sweden
If anything, it is the non-monarchies that have something to prove.
Constitutional monarchy provides a stability and prosperity republics cannot match, as long as the ruling family avoids hideous scandal. Nepal is the counter-example. Tho, when I went there a couple of years ago, the common lament was: "bring back the monarchy".
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
Yes I'm saying it is wrong.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
That is how the law works already.
No its not.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
Yes it is. You're arguing for tougher sentences. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
No I'm arguing for consistency.
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
You're missing the point yet again. Crimes cannot be "aggravating by default" because that isn't how the law works and would give judges no leeway.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
The maximum sentence for GBH is life in prison so how much more should Parliament increase the severity than that?
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
So you think the default for every GBH should be life in prison? How long would your list of mitigating factors be?
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
I think the default for any conviction unless there's mitigation should be the maximum yes. GBH has two different maximums depending upon the class - it could be five years or life, so a default for five years for much I would go for yes.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
There's a reason why successive governments of all colours have never implemented such a thing because they know what a complete disaster it would be.
Our current system is a complete disaster - which is why successive governments of all colours keep adding more and more reasons for aggrevation, which just leaves everyone else exposed and naked when they're the victim.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
You keep writing things that are not relevant.
Nobody has said that there is any justification for unproved GBH. Nobody has said it isn't incredibly serious. Nobody is saying such a thing shouldn't receive a heavy sentence.
For some reason you're projecting your frustration from the justice system personally letting you down on some unrelated point about whether racial motivation should be an aggravating factor. It has literally nothing to do with it.
You want tougher sentences. Fine. But that's a completely separate argument.
I want consistent sentences. I want sentences to be consistently applied and not just only to be applied when they tick a box.
Look at America to see the disaster which follows such policies.
The only disaster there is that they apply those sentences to victimless crimes.
There is no disaster in keeping murderers off the streets.
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
Would Ireland not come under countries people in britain regularly travel to and countries whose citizens regularly travel to and countries with close historical and cultural links to britain?
Bugger Ireland.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
For someone who melts down regularly about Covid, you seem very relaxed about an unvaccinated population with a completely open border to the UK. It's not just being 'nice' it's self interest.
So we close the border on the grounds of "public health". Seven different problems: sorted
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
The fact that you keep resorting to a fight that got out of hand as your alternative rather says it all.
A fight that got out of hand is not unprovoked and ought to be mitigation.
The Yorkshire Ripper didn't murder anyone because they were black or gay, did that make his crimes less serious? Murder is murder and without mitigation it is as serious as it gets - you don't get "more serious".
More detail on WHO the British would like to share with (TL:DR Not the EU or Ireland):
I don't see Ireland as an option there. Strange omission, given our closer links and shared land border with Ireland.
I would have said Ireland but otherwise agreed with the list there in pretty much roughly that order, given Ireland wasn't an option I wouldn't have said the EU as a whole.
I would describe it as a country with "Close cultural, historical and political links with Britain" (11%), ahead of the EU at 7%.
So's Australia.
If they wanted to say Ireland they should have said Ireland. Its not on the list distinctly.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Why is it more serious murdering someone because they are black more serious than murdering someone in exactly the same way because they are a goth?
I don't think it is. I believe that targeting someone for being a member of ANY GROUP should be an aggravating factor, which isn't too far away from what @Philip_Thompson was already arguing.
Like I said I don't think the system is perfect.
Right so you want to narrow it down to any group, but exclude any individuals or anyone who just attacks anyone consistently? Why? How does that make it any better?
May as well do what I said - be consistent but allow mitigation. That's not the American system incidentally since the American mandatory sentence laws don't permit mitigation.
@Charles. Let me get this straight. You don't think the action of say, causing GBH, to someone purely because they were black (or asian, or jewish, etc) is not worthy of greater punishment then say, two blokes fighting each other in a pub over a split drink?
Really?
In your case - those aren't equivalent, because one is a fight, and one is an unprovoked attack. A fairer comparison would be someone indiscriminately attacking someone because they were angry, and someone attacking someone because they were black. Both of those deserve equal punishment - the maximum punishment. Unless you think that the non-racist nature of the first attack is some sort of mitigating factor?
I didn't say they were an equivalent. That's the point.
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I thump someone because they are black I get a longer sentence that if I thump someone because they are a goth......explain why the first is a hate crime and the second isn't. Which it isn't under law.
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The victim doesn't just get to declare its a "hate crime". That isn't how it works at all.
quote from cps website
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
No it isn't. 1. that isn't "the law" and 2. you need to read on.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
'Hate crime' is one of those phrases that takes an important word - 'crime' and effectively subverts it. See also 'political correctness', and 'social justice'.
Oh well.
Indeed. To slightly adapt something I said earlier, the concept of a hate crime doesn't seem to make much logical sense in itself: hating someone is not illegal, murdering them is. Therefore, judging a crime motivated by hate to be more serious than one without that motive is irrational, like adding 0 to 1 and getting 2.
I would say that murdering someone purely because they were black or gay, for example, is more serious than murdering someone in a fight that got out of hand. Yes.
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
But why, once again, are you confusing the issue by adding a genuine mitigating factor to one side? It doesn't show much faith in your argument that you aren't using an example where all other things are equal.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a black guy - he hates black guys, he shot him.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a guy, he wanted to know what it would be like to kill someone, he shot him.
(Bit sexist that it's a man, but hey)
You think the former should get a stiffer sentence (or to put it another way, that the latter should get a lighter sentence). I can't see any moral justification for that.
Because you're moving the goalposts.
The original argument is whether a specific CRIME should result in the same sentence. I'm highlighting the fact that a specific crime can have a range of seriousnesses.
The example is silly anyway because Murder already has a mandatory life sentence.
Comments
If they wanted to say Ireland they should have said Ireland. Its not on the list distinctly.
Really?
Adam Curtis's latest programme "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" has just been made available on BBC iPlayer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p093wpgw/cant-get-you-out-of-my-head-series-1-1-part-one-bloodshed-on-wolf-mountain
I think unprovoked GBH of someone because they were black ought to be taken extremely seriously.
I think unprovoked GBH for no damn reason or any other should be taken extremely seriously.
Don't you? Really?
The crime is GBH. In both scenarios they would be charged with GBH. If convicted the former would likely receive a higher sentence than the latter because the "hate crime" element would be an aggravating factor. Are you saying this is wrong?
You don't seem to understand the law of sentencing. A crime being "non-racist" is not a mitigating factor, it's just that a "hate crime" is an aggravating factor. You can't have every instance of a crime receiving the same sentence as that leaves absolutely no room to adjust to the circumstances of the case. It would leave our justice system in a much worse of a position.
I didn't say anything about not taking unproved GBH for any reason seriously.
@Charles is saying that every instance of the crime of GBH should be given the same punishment.
There is no such crime as "unprovoked GBH". There is just "GBH".
Therefore GBH with an "unprovoked" element would be an aggravating factor in sentencing just as the "hate crime" aspect would be an aggravating factor.
Tradition and cultural conservatism is far more popular. Note too in the US there has not really been a genuinely libertarian President since Reagan
We don't out of the blue thump someone unless for some reason we hate them or because we have mental issues.
It is also wrong because the victim gets to declare its a hate crime even if its not. For example white guy pinches my girlfriends but in a pub I punch him, black guy does the same I punch him. In the latter case though likely a longer sentence if the guy claims its racially motivated.
The fact it was a mutual fight maybe should be a mitigating factor for one. But unprovoked assault is unprovoked assault. It should be dealt with either way.
To declare an interest I was a victim of an entirely unprovoked GBH assault in the past that shattered my eyesocket and could have blinded me - anyone who does that to another human being should be dealt with extremely seriously.
My attacker got six months in prison. Would have been out after 2 months at the most really.
I probably had longer in rehabilitation than he had in prison.
BUT we should say we now only recognise that Ambassador for the country of the European Union. And as such, we would no longer recognise the Ambassadors of the 27 constituents of that new EU country.
Light the blue touch-paper - and retire to a safe distance...
Er, are these countries feeling subservient in some way?
Lefties need to try harder
You cannot have a system with no way for judges to adapt sentences to the circumstances of the offence. You can see the damage of such policies in America.
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
source https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
So sorry thats exactly what the law says
@Charles was arguing that specific crimes should always have the same sentence. I was simple highlighting that our system CANNOT work that way because then you have situations where GBH as a result of a planned unprovoked assault is sentenced in the same manner as two adults scrapping over a spilt pint.
Take a look. "Offenders operating in groups or gangs" is also an aggravating factor.
It also means the entire landscape is protected, in a way that would not happen with owner-occupier
I have heard Scottish crofters say the same
If you're saying that GBH due to racism etc is aggrevating then by default you're mitigating all other assaults.
There should be an opportunity to give mitigating factors, but all crimes like GBH should be aggravated by default.
They opened Pandora's Box, despite saying they never would.
Gove (and the Government) would have come under ferocious criticism - and risked similar incidents from the EU, in future - had those actions had no consequences.
And let's not forget that the EU threatened to block vaccine exports to us which can, you know, kill people and put us bottom of the list with Russia for punishment. Just because we showed them up.
We sent them a letter.
Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. My main point is that it's easy to underestimate how deeply intertwined the monarchy is with just about every aspect of this country, public and private, civic and constitutional, military, charitable, scientific, educational etc. etc. etc., from Royal Assent all the way down to Greys of Alnwick (manufacturers of fishing tackle by royal appointment), and how much quiet stability and continuity they provide. We could get rid of them tomorrow, but it would be a bit like digging up every water main in the land at the same time - an awful lot of trouble for a result that isn't guaranteed to be any better.
You have a standard sentencing range for an offence. You then have factors of the offence that mitigate and factors which aggravate.
Racism is one of many aggravating factors. It's likely that a particular offence will have many aggravating factors.
If you think sentences are too light then you need Parliament to increase their severity. Removing racially motivated offences as an aggravating factor would change absolutely nothing.
However, if the crime is identical, the effective result of racism being an aggravating factor is two classes of the same crime, and two classes of victims. A victim should not expect their attacker to receive a lighter sentence merely because he only disliked their hairdo, as opposed to their skin colour. The crime is no less vicious, and no more justified, so why should the sentence be less? If you have a moral justification, as opposed to a legal explanation, that's an interesting discussion. Currently, I haven't seen one.
I do not understand the overwhelming sympathy for them on this site. Read their media, it is drenched with Anglophobia. Fintan The Tool is positively moderate compared to most of them. Everything is the fault of the Hated English.
Moreover, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the EU. Yes, the GDP stats are largely meaningless, but they are not that meaningless. Ireland is affluent. It will be fine. It doesn't even want our help.
Let us direct our charity (should we be lucky enough to afford it) at the really poor in Africa and elsewhere
I'm saying there should IMO be mitigating factors, not aggravating ones.
A person may "identify" a hate crime but then the police and the CPS will investigate if such a hate crime has been committed and would need to adduce evidence of such.
You cannot form opinions with these half-baked Daily Mail-esque "facts".
You're basically half way to America's system where people get 35 years for smoking weed once.
Before you know it our prisons will be absolutely full to the brim.
Oh well.
We've lost 7,500 jobs to the EU, and £1 trillion of EU assets. We've put on over 20,000 jobs, and gained an increased share of global forex and asset management in Asia.
We have nearly 50% of the nearly £5 trillion *daily* turnover of global forex. We're a world centre for derivatives trading. We have £10+ trillion of assets under management, and increasing shares of the markets in the Americas and Asia, as the European one has declined.
What we're seeing here is a restructuring. Not the demise of the City, which will find a new global niche, and continue to grow.
Would that the UK had done the same. So many UK colonies WANTED to remain with the mother country. We cast them off. Mistake. From the Seychelles to Malta.
You don't get prosecuted for a "hate crime". That isn't a thing.
It is simply what the prosecution argue AFTER conviction at the sentencing hearing as part of many factors contributing towards a higher sentence and it requires EVIDENCE. The jury has nothing to do with it.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Also, go to Cork. Brand new office buildings and swanky art, but surrounded by utterly moribund and decrepit Victorian tenements - all over the place. Some doing ok, and some doing awfully.
Ireland is like microwaving a meal when you get a bit in the middle really hot and well cooked, but the rest is frigid and inedible.
The Yang to the Ying (or visa versa) of American imperialism.
I think victimless crimes like smoking weed etc shouldn't be crimes in the first place, but assaulting people and shattering their eyesocket and potentially killing them? Yes, years for that. If you have reason for mitigation then give that.
The best place to start is probably with asking the Commonwealth realms if they would be interested.
Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana are more meaty, but they aren't in the APAC region.
There is absolutely no justification for unprovoked GBH. Doing it to someone because they're black is evil. Doing it to someone because they're gay is evil. Doing it to someone because they're female is evil. Doing it to someone because they're in your space is evil. Tackle the problem consistently, stop looking for cause celebres to deal with it for some but not bother with others.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/11/five-ways-city-can-fight-back-against-eu/
Both are very serious of course but from society's perspective the first is more serious.
Nobody has said that there is any justification for unproved GBH. Nobody has said it isn't incredibly serious. Nobody is saying such a thing shouldn't receive a heavy sentence.
For some reason you're projecting your frustration from the justice system personally letting you down on some unrelated point about whether racial motivation should be an aggravating factor. It has literally nothing to do with it.
You want tougher sentences. Fine. But that's a completely separate argument.
Same probably applies on the victim side of the coin.
However, I don't believe any of these issues are related to whether a crime being racially motivated should be an aggravating factor, amongst at least 20-30 other aggravating factors.
You seem to be arguing that we should have higher evidential burden for such an allegation and I wouldn't disagree.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a black guy - he hates black guys, he shot him.
Man shoots someone because he had a gun on him, he saw a guy, he wanted to know what it would be like to kill someone, he shot him.
(Bit sexist that it's a man, but hey)
You think the former should get a stiffer sentence (or to put it another way, that the latter should get a lighter sentence). I can't see any moral justification for that.
A fight that got out of hand is not unprovoked and ought to be mitigation.
The Yorkshire Ripper didn't murder anyone because they were black or gay, did that make his crimes less serious? Murder is murder and without mitigation it is as serious as it gets - you don't get "more serious".
Like I said I don't think the system is perfect.
Let's look at the top 20 countries by GDP per capita
12 of the top 20 are monarchies, Luxembourg to Australia, Qatar to Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
If anything, it is the non-monarchies that have something to prove.
Constitutional monarchy provides a stability and prosperity republics cannot match, as long as the ruling family avoids hideous scandal. Nepal is the counter-example. Tho, when I went there a couple of years ago, the common lament was: "bring back the monarchy".
There is no disaster in keeping murderers off the streets.
May as well do what I said - be consistent but allow mitigation. That's not the American system incidentally since the American mandatory sentence laws don't permit mitigation.
The original argument is whether a specific CRIME should result in the same sentence. I'm highlighting the fact that a specific crime can have a range of seriousnesses.
The example is silly anyway because Murder already has a mandatory life sentence.