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.
Australia is on the list, along with Canada (4%)
Just as Ireland is on the list (7%).
How you read the other groupings is up to you, which makes it a very badly written poll. If you wanted to see how people responded with the name Ireland you'd need to say Ireland as an option. It didn't do 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.
So we close the border on the grounds of "public health". Seven different problems: sorted
But probably a few more gained...
Whatever. I think the UK is destined for quasi-war with the EU anyway. Might as well kick off on a field both sides know well, the Field of Athenry, only with machine guns
@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.
Yes but you've not demonstrated why we shouldn't treat all crimes as serious and then allow mitigation - rather than just treating most seriously only those which tick a box first.
Mitigation can and should represent the range of seriousness.
@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.
The problem with your proposal is that it is just as a result of a punishment lust and will absolutely result in a much increased prison population. Are you prepared to deal with the lack of rehabilitation and increased cost? Are you prepared to deal with the reoffending rates?
Our system is designed around the view that prison should really be a last resort.
You're arguing that in many cases prison should be the default and that in itself presents many challenges and problems. Not least in the amount of reoffending.
I understand your point of view but I worry it ends in simply punishment for punishment sake and I believe that puts us all at greater risk.
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".
Partly, that's because, if you are going to do it well, being Head of State is a rubbish job, and anyone who actively seeks the role is, by definition, unsuitable to do it.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
Politico.com - Newsom shifts into defense mode as California recall takes shape If the recall qualifies, the governor could find himself in campaign mode for the next two years while trying to navigate the state through crisis.
@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.
The problem with your proposal is that it is just as a result of a punishment lust and will absolutely result in a much increased prison population. Are you prepared to deal with the lack of rehabilitation and increased cost? Are you prepared to deal with the reoffending rates?
Our system is designed around the view that prison should really be a last resort.
You're arguing that in many cases prison should be the default and that in itself presents many challenges and problems. Not least in the amount of reoffending.
I understand your point of view but I worry it ends in simply punishment for punishment sake and I believe that puts us all at greater risk.
Its not 'punishment lust', I want the punishment to fit the crime.
Those who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs offences etc - I would abolish all those crimes in the first place and none of them would be in prison if it were up to me.
But for serious offenders, yes there should be a serious punishment if need be - and if that means more prison places then we should invest more money in doing the job properly.
"Talks are continuing around qualifying for equivalence access to EU markets - but the value of this status is diminishing over time as companies and markets adjust, so the City of London is already moving on to new growth opportunities.
A senior finance source said: “The industry is not begging the EU for access anymore. It would be great, it would make life a little easier, but now the focus is on making the UK as competitive as possible.
“It is not about deregulation, but looking for things to iron out or change or make life more efficient, to cut the cost of doing business. It might reduce the chance of a bank leaving, or make a boss thinking about hiring more trading staff or getting a new office think more about the UK.”
Britain is competing with Asia and New York in global markets, so the aim should be to make companies think about doing business here instead of overseas."
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK. Woe betide you if you crack a joke about any of them in a bar. A frosty silence descends. They have the talent of making the meaningless look meaningful and privilege look ordinary. That's the secret to a modern monarchy.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
I'd reverse it: have an absence of prior convictions as a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor that obviously is lost once you have repeated convictions.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
But the list of aggravating factors is quite long. For example, previous convictions, planning an offence, operating in gangs, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, use of weapons, etc.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
@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?
Why is it less serious if someone murders someone who is pretty much the same type of person as them? Same race, same gender, same sexuality, same age, same background, same income, same nationality, etc.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
I'd reverse it: have an absence of prior convictions as a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor that obviously is lost once you have repeated convictions.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
But they are taken seriously! It's ridiculous to suggest they aren't. Why do you think a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked up in prison for 5+ years?
Tbh racial motivation (The same as if motivation that the victim was part of any other group) should be considered an aggravating factor, but the damnable tautology/wokeism of "hate crime" needs abolishing.
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK. Woe betide you if you crack a joke about any of them in a bar. A frosty silence descends. They have the talent of making the meaningless look meaningful and privilege look ordinary. That's the secret to a modern 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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
But the list of aggravating factors is quite long. For example, previous convictions, planning an offence, operating in gangs, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, use of weapons, etc.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
So there's no reason to object to a long list of mitigating factors then is there?
All GBH should automatically be taken seriously. All murder should be. All drugs "offences" should not be.
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK.
Doesn't it? Even Charles doesn't seem that disliked anymore, and whilst it might change in the next royal handover, republican sentiments aren't exactly beating down the door right now.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
But the list of aggravating factors is quite long. For example, previous convictions, planning an offence, operating in gangs, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, use of weapons, etc.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
So there's no reason to object to a long list of mitigating factors then is there?
All GBH should automatically be taken seriously. All murder should be. All drugs "offences" should not be.
Like I said, why have you decided that a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked up in prison for 5+ years?
A criminal conviction, especially for GBH, is in reality a life-long affliction. You will struggle to get good jobs (or any job) and will generally have a worse standard of living for the rest of your life.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
But the list of aggravating factors is quite long. For example, previous convictions, planning an offence, operating in gangs, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, use of weapons, etc.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
So there's no reason to object to a long list of mitigating factors then is there?
All GBH should automatically be taken seriously. All murder should be. All drugs "offences" should not be.
I think you mean to say 'not all drugs "offences" should be'.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
I'd reverse it: have an absence of prior convictions as a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor that obviously is lost once you have repeated convictions.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
But they are taken seriously! It's ridiculous to suggest they aren't. Why do you think a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked up in prison for 5+ years?
Well then if sentence doesn't matter there's no reason to have aggravating factors then is there?
Why does someone's race suddenly matter if you think locking people up makes no difference?
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
That's true, though the government of Singapore is equally beloved of a different certain type of person in the UK.
As I said, a shameful story with something for everyone.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
I'd reverse it: have an absence of prior convictions as a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor that obviously is lost once you have repeated convictions.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
But they are taken seriously! It's ridiculous to suggest they aren't. Why do you think a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked up in prison for 5+ years?
Well then if sentence doesn't matter there's no reason to have aggravating factors then is there?
Why does someone's race suddenly matter if you think locking people up makes no difference?
I didn't say the sentence didn't matter. I said it was ridiculous to conclude that a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked in a cage for an arbitrary number of years as a result.
"Talks are continuing around qualifying for equivalence access to EU markets - but the value of this status is diminishing over time as companies and markets adjust, so the City of London is already moving on to new growth opportunities.
A senior finance source said: “The industry is not begging the EU for access anymore. It would be great, it would make life a little easier, but now the focus is on making the UK as competitive as possible.
“It is not about deregulation, but looking for things to iron out or change or make life more efficient, to cut the cost of doing business. It might reduce the chance of a bank leaving, or make a boss thinking about hiring more trading staff or getting a new office think more about the UK.”
Britain is competing with Asia and New York in global markets, so the aim should be to make companies think about doing business here instead of overseas."
I think this is what the Eurocrats have completely underestimated. The City has a phenomenal ability to revolutionise itself. My company has chosen London to be it's European HQ, it books all deals through London and the reason I think EU companies will move to have secondary listings in London is because they want to be part of London's one stop shop and loads of them are unhappy about being cut off from what London offers in terms of investor diversity.
One of the key things we need to do is change listing rules so that we are able to attract secondary listings from EU based firms and win many, many more of our own tech company listings as well as tech companies based in Europe. The investors who invest in London exist and want to put their money in but there is a complete dearth of viable companies because listing rules are too stringent and tech companies are deciding to list in the US, I can think of two recent examples where this has even led to a previously UK based company following the listing and moving their HQ and tax domicile to the US for reasons of convenience and investor demands. London was never in the running becuase of outdated listing rules for premium listings.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely all mitigating factors should be taken on their own merits.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
But the list of aggravating factors is quite long. For example, previous convictions, planning an offence, operating in gangs, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, use of weapons, etc.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
So there's no reason to object to a long list of mitigating factors then is there?
All GBH should automatically be taken seriously. All murder should be. All drugs "offences" should not be.
I think you mean to say 'not all drugs "offences" should be'.
But I'll butt out now.
No I meant all should not be. Since I'm saying there shouldn't be such a thing as a drugs offence in the first place, if there were no drugs offences then there'd be no drugs offenders.
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK. Woe betide you if you crack a joke about any of them in a bar. A frosty silence descends. They have the talent of making the meaningless look meaningful and privilege look ordinary. That's the secret to a modern monarchy.
@Philip_Thompson please play along with this thought experiment. Please note I am not intending to trivialise what happened to you but I'm curious to your thoughts and using your real experience will probably give a more honest answer.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime. 2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
I'd rather he never commits another crime obviously. But that's a false dichotomy.
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
it isn't a false dichotomy. It shows that you'd actually prefer rehabilitation.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
I'd reverse it: have an absence of prior convictions as a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor that obviously is lost once you have repeated convictions.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
But they are taken seriously! It's ridiculous to suggest they aren't. Why do you think a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked up in prison for 5+ years?
Well then if sentence doesn't matter there's no reason to have aggravating factors then is there?
Why does someone's race suddenly matter if you think locking people up makes no difference?
I didn't say the sentence didn't matter. I said it was ridiculous to conclude that a crime is only "taken seriously" if someone is locked in a cage for an arbitrary number of years as a result.
I'm not the one who says it, that law does. That's the reason for the aggravating factor policy.
If the cause of an assault is "hate" then why not targeted rehabilitation to get rid of the hate? If you believe rehabilitation works and if you believe that you have identified the reason someone offended then why add to the jail sentence, why not rehabilitate away the reason you think the offence happened?
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK.
Doesn't it? Even Charles doesn't seem that disliked anymore, and whilst it might change in the next royal handover, republican sentiments aren't exactly beating down the door right now.
Just looked and it seems King Willem Alexander has got himself into some difficulty, including a casual attitude to Covid lockdown and his popularity is dropping like a stone. So there we go. Still ahead of Prince Charles though on 51% versus 47%
I'll put "the British Royal Family can only dream of being like the Dutch" next to Alan Partridge saying Wings are only the band the Beatles could have been.
@Philip_Thompson our system is supposed to be that the judge (or magistrates) decides the punishment to fit the crime, taking into account all (most of) the circumstances of the particular offence. (Note: I'm not saying it does this job perfectly or even particularly well).
Your proposed system is that parliament should set the "default" punishment and then give only certain proscribed reasons why punishment should be reduced.
They are similar but I'm almost certain that your proposed system would result in some massively out of whack sentences and undoubtedly a higher prison population and with that increased costs and reoffending rates.
I think it would make more sense to look at individual offences and decide where the "holes" in the current system are. For example your unfortunate experience. Without knowing the specifics it's hard to argue either way.
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".
I mean the Dutch royal family succeeds on its own terms in a way the UK equivalent can dream of. They incur plenty of controversy but the family gets a level of public support that doesn't exist in the UK. Woe betide you if you crack a joke about any of them in a bar. A frosty silence descends. They have the talent of making the meaningless look meaningful and privilege look ordinary. That's the secret to a modern monarchy.
Hilarious post.
Earlier FF43 was claiming he wasn't an emotional remainer. It's been a tough day for him I guess. The level of denial about the UK and US abandoning the EU is palpable.
@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?
Why is it less serious if someone murders someone who is pretty much the same type of person as them? Same race, same gender, same sexuality, same age, same background, same income, same nationality, etc.
I wouldn't claim it was I was merely giving gallowgate a chance to explain why one murder is worse than the other which he seems to think is the case as only one has the aggravating factor
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
Justin Trudeau is the Wokiest of the Woke.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
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, 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 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.
I think the UK is already pretty hostile to the EU. Ultimately a carefully calibrated level of crap is the solution, or at least the probable eventual outcome on my baseline expectation. But it could take years to settle. Disaster isn't in the EU's interest.
But we're not hostile in the same way. Sure some loonies want the EU to meltdown, but most Brits want to live and let live, trade freely, travel happily, they don't want Europeans to get poorer or suffer political crises or whatever
Yet that is, I believe, the attitude now of many senior EU officials and politicians towards the UK. For the sake of The Project, the UK must fail, and if that means Britons suffering, tough shit
Fuck 'em, then
Question is- does the EU actively want to put boulders in the way because we're the UK and we've left? Or is it that they have no intention of lifting a finger to help us?
The first would be bad, and an act of aggression, but the second would be "You wanted to be treated as a separate entity? Welcome to Big School." Not nice, but inevitable. Realpolitik isn't nice.
Basically, anyone who thought that "old boy dining rights" were a thing was a naive fool. And we should note that hardly anyone in Europe is either arguing for kinder treatment of the UK, or to follow our example.
I think they are asking more from the UK than other countries. May they still believe we need them (they are wrong), may be there are some who think they can punish us (they are wrong).
It shows a lack of maturity on their side that they are not looking fit a win-win. But we can wait. And in 5 years it will be different
With one exception, I don't think the EU is asking more from the UK than other countries. The UK/EU TCA is broadly similar to Canada/EU CETA but goes a bit beyond. TCA is fully Zero Tariffs and Quotas, while CETA still has both. CETA was the most comprehensive FTA struck by the EU before TCA and is a lot more ambitious than other countries' FTAs.
The one area where the EU is asking for more from the UK is in the Northern Ireland Protocol. It is not a wonderful thing, but it is there to try to deal with a real problem. It is not a case of the EU playing games. They would undoubtedly wish not to have that problem too.
Yes the EU needs the new arrangement to be worse for the UK than the one before, but that comes out simply by the EU treating the UK as a third country. Speaking as someone who knew this was going to happen before the referendum if it went Leave and that German car manufacturers etc were never going to materialise, I don't particularly blame the EU. I do somewhat blame Brexiteers for misleading the public but that's all gone now.
Point is WE need to grow up and deal with the situation we put ourselves into.
They are asking for dynamic alignment for equivalence in the City
Currently if a crime is committed against against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public it's likely it will lead to a higher sentence.
However in your proposed system there would be no further punishment for such a thing. So what you will get is "punishment inflation". The Daily Mail screaming that those who commit crimes against emergency workers should have higher sentences and before you know it you have aggravating factors again.
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
@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?
Why is it less serious if someone murders someone who is pretty much the same type of person as them? Same race, same gender, same sexuality, same age, same background, same income, same nationality, etc.
I wouldn't claim it was I was merely giving gallowgate a chance to explain why one murder is worse than the other which he seems to think is the case as only one has the aggravating factor
Do you think people should receive longer prison sentences if they commit crimes against emergency workers?
I'd been in Holland for about 10 minutes in my life when I was first engaged in conversation/gossip about the British royal family, which they seem to follow like a soap opera. Similar in Germany. Their version hardly registers in comparison.
@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.
Without taking sides on the larger argument, the (agreed) disaster that is America has little or nothing to do with consistent sentencing.
The problem with @Philip_Thompson 's idea is that the list of "mitigating factors" would become so long that the system would no longer be consistent and default to what we have now. The fact is that no two crimes are the same.
Fair enough I see your point on this and agree. I suppose my main problem is the current system where a 'hate crime' is defined by the victim, the police or even a bystander with no apparent reference to reality. Thus (to use a rather less emotive example than murder) if I get into a fight with someone in a bar and punch them because they were groping my wife, I run the risk of being charged with a hate crime if they are non white rather than simple assault if they were white.
I think the use of the 'hate crime' supplement should be reserved for cases where colour, religion, sexuality etc are clearly the cause of the attack rather than just the happenstance of the victim. Under those circumstances I have no problem at all with a more severe sentence.
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, 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 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.
I think the UK is already pretty hostile to the EU. Ultimately a carefully calibrated level of crap is the solution, or at least the probable eventual outcome on my baseline expectation. But it could take years to settle. Disaster isn't in the EU's interest.
But we're not hostile in the same way. Sure some loonies want the EU to meltdown, but most Brits want to live and let live, trade freely, travel happily, they don't want Europeans to get poorer or suffer political crises or whatever
Yet that is, I believe, the attitude now of many senior EU officials and politicians towards the UK. For the sake of The Project, the UK must fail, and if that means Britons suffering, tough shit
Fuck 'em, then
Question is- does the EU actively want to put boulders in the way because we're the UK and we've left? Or is it that they have no intention of lifting a finger to help us?
The first would be bad, and an act of aggression, but the second would be "You wanted to be treated as a separate entity? Welcome to Big School." Not nice, but inevitable. Realpolitik isn't nice.
Basically, anyone who thought that "old boy dining rights" were a thing was a naive fool. And we should note that hardly anyone in Europe is either arguing for kinder treatment of the UK, or to follow our example.
I think they are asking more from the UK than other countries. May they still believe we need them (they are wrong), may be there are some who think they can punish us (they are wrong).
It shows a lack of maturity on their side that they are not looking fit a win-win. But we can wait. And in 5 years it will be different
With one exception, I don't think the EU is asking more from the UK than other countries. The UK/EU TCA is broadly similar to Canada/EU CETA but goes a bit beyond. TCA is fully Zero Tariffs and Quotas, while CETA still has both. CETA was the most comprehensive FTA struck by the EU before TCA and is a lot more ambitious than other countries' FTAs.
The one area where the EU is asking for more from the UK is in the Northern Ireland Protocol. It is not a wonderful thing, but it is there to try to deal with a real problem. It is not a case of the EU playing games. They would undoubtedly wish not to have that problem too.
Yes the EU needs the new arrangement to be worse for the UK than the one before, but that comes out simply by the EU treating the UK as a third country. Speaking as someone who knew this was going to happen before the referendum if it went Leave and that German car manufacturers etc were never going to materialise, I don't particularly blame the EU. I do somewhat blame Brexiteers for misleading the public but that's all gone now.
Point is WE need to grow up and deal with the situation we put ourselves into.
They are asking for dynamic alignment for equivalence in the City
AFAIK the EU doesn't have financial services equivalence decisions for Canada. In fact I think it revoked a previous one, presumably because Canada no longer met the dynamically changing rules.
@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?
Those are not comparable.
A white man murdering a black man should be treated the same as a black man murdering a white man. Whether it was racially motivated or a robbery gone wrong.
Premeditated GBH either way should be treated the same
I’m not sure (but you are the lawyer!) that premeditated GBH should get treated the same as a bar fight that gets out of control. But the race of the participants in either case is not a relevant factor
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
Justin Trudeau is the Wokiest of the Woke.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
I might find self-immolation more pleasant.
One of Trump's actually successful attempts at a witticism was when he called Trudeau 'two-faced' for mocking him behind his back at a NATO summit, an insult that works on more than one level...
@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?
Why is it less serious if someone murders someone who is pretty much the same type of person as them? Same race, same gender, same sexuality, same age, same background, same income, same nationality, etc.
I wouldn't claim it was I was merely giving gallowgate a chance to explain why one murder is worse than the other which he seems to think is the case as only one has the aggravating factor
Do you think people should receive longer prison sentences if they commit crimes against emergency workers?
Why in your view is someone punching me in the course of my job more serious that someone punching a policeman in the course of theirs?
@Philip_Thompson our system is supposed to be that the judge (or magistrates) decides the punishment to fit the crime, taking into account all the circumstances of the particular offence. (Note: I'm not saying it does this job perfectly or even particularly well).
Your proposed system is that parliament should set the "default" punishment and then give only certain proscribed reasons why punishment should be reduced.
They are similar but I'm almost certain that your proposed system would result in some massively out of whack sentences and undoubtedly a higher prison population and with that increased costs and reoffending rates.
I think it would make more sense to look at individual offences and decide where the "holes" in the current system are. For example your unfortunate experience. Without knowing the specifics it's hard to argue either way.
Where did I say there should only be proscribed reasons why punishment should be reduced?
I said that offenders should be given the opportunity to offer mitigation and the judge (or magistrates) should be able to take that and adjudicate it on their own merits. I wouldn't have a list of mitigation reasons, I would allow the judiciary to adjudicate that. If the mitigation is due to a reason that doesn't neatly fall into any individual category should it be ignored?
For my specific example it was June 2004, I was an MSc student at University and we had watched the Euro 2004 England football game earlier in the day. As it was June all the main student union bars were closed because the undergrads had gone home for the summer but as a postgrad we were staying on so we went out in the evening to a nightclub I'd never been to before. We arrived early and that's the last thing I remember before waking up in hospital.
From what I've been told and the court testimony, we'd gone onto the dance floor and someone (all recorded on CCTV) walked across the club up to us, swung a punch that sent me to the floor, shattering my eye socket in one go. Nothing had happened, no words exchanged, it was all unprovoked. Remarkably the bouncers reacted by throwing out the attacker - but I didn't stand up after being punched and my friends moved me and there was a pool of blood at which point one of my friends ran out of the club, hailed a Police Officer off the street who nicked my attacker. He gave no explanation as to why he had done it.
Next thing I knew was waking up in hospital in an MRI machine unable to see what was going on, I was unable to see for a couple of days and was told I'd be blinded in that eye if I sneezed at all within a fortnight.
@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.
@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?
Why is it less serious if someone murders someone who is pretty much the same type of person as them? Same race, same gender, same sexuality, same age, same background, same income, same nationality, etc.
I wouldn't claim it was I was merely giving gallowgate a chance to explain why one murder is worse than the other which he seems to think is the case as only one has the aggravating factor
Do you think people should receive longer prison sentences if they commit crimes against emergency workers?
Why in your view is someone punching me in the course of my job more serious that someone punching a policeman in the course of theirs?
I was asking you a question. I didn't say whether I agreed with the statement or not.
However I'm willing to bet a majority of the population do support such a thing, considering it was brought in to much fanfare.
@Philip_Thompson our system is supposed to be that the judge (or magistrates) decides the punishment to fit the crime, taking into account all (most of) the circumstances of the particular offence. (Note: I'm not saying it does this job perfectly or even particularly well).
Your proposed system is that parliament should set the "default" punishment and then give only certain proscribed reasons why punishment should be reduced.
They are similar but I'm almost certain that your proposed system would result in some massively out of whack sentences and undoubtedly a higher prison population and with that increased costs and reoffending rates.
I think it would make more sense to look at individual offences and decide where the "holes" in the current system are. For example your unfortunate experience. Without knowing the specifics it's hard to argue either 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?
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.
I was arguing equivalent crimes should have the same sentence.
Currently if a crime is committed against against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public it's likely it will lead to a higher sentence.
However in your proposed system there would be no further punishment for such a thing. So what you will get is "punishment inflation". The Daily Mail screaming that those who commit crimes against emergency workers should have higher sentences and before you know it you have aggravating factors again.
I don't think we should pander to the Daily Mail.
All who are victims of a crime should be treated equally seriously. That applies equally to a nurse being attacked in the course of her duties or a shop assistant being attacked in the course of theirs.
@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?
Those are not comparable.
A white man murdering a black man should be treated the same as a black man murdering a white man. Whether it was racially motivated or a robbery gone wrong.
Premeditated GBH either way should be treated the same
I’m not sure (but you are the lawyer!) that premeditated GBH should get treated the same as a bar fight that gets out of control. But the race of the participants in either case is not a relevant factor
I'm not a lawyer yet unfortunately.
However, my point was that they are not comparable.
You seemed to be suggesting that it was the crime that should be the driving force behind the sentence and not the motivation for the crime. So I pointed out two instances of the same crime, both motivated by different things, to which you agreed that they are not comparable.
However aren't we discussing whether society should deem it more worthy of greater punishment if an offence is committed for reasons we find even more abhorrent?
For example, a black person killing a white person simply because they are white. That is arguably different to a black person killing a white person for another reason.
I agree with some posters on here that perhaps the evidential burden should be higher but I don't disagree with having such things as aggravating factors. It doesn't negate the seriousness of the offence otherwise, it's just one of many potential factors that make the offence MORE serious.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
@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.
That’s not what I am saying
Well in that case I apologise for misconstruing your argument.
Goodness me, the punishment for hate vs normal crime argument is still running? OK:
Long term, the goal surely has to be for there to be no special treatments for anyone, and all individuals to be treated the same. In the short term, there is an argument, for example, for increased sentences to be handed out for specific crimes that society has issues with and is trying to stamp out for big picture reasons - hate crime being an obvious example. But these can only ever be short term solutions, because eventually the additional punishment itself becomes the problem in race relations, since not everyone is getting treated equally.
The question is whether the current societal situation really warrants those additional penalties at the expense of a minor level of ill feeling from the majority. I'd say probably yes for the time being, but we really should be thinking about an exit strategy, and my impression is that certain sectors of current political opinion think the differential treatment is a Good Thing in the long term. Which is a problem.
and the court testimony, we'd gone onto the dance floor and someone (all recorded on CCTV) walked across the club up to us, swung a punch that sent me to the floor, shattering my eye socket in one go. Nothing had happened, no words exchanged, it was all unprovoked.
It might seem odd to anyone who hasn't experienced such a thing but the (far far milder) assault on myself in the late 90s was completely unprovoked as well. They've never really been "got" in the public/system consciousness because logically crime needs - well crime needs mens rea. But if you're a young person on a night out there's a chance you'll just be a completely random victim. It's an assault type which is every bit as bad as something motivated for any other reason
@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.
I was arguing equivalent crimes should have the same sentence.
Even there I would suggest that they should have the same upper and lower limits but that there should be a range of possible outcomes between those limits dependent on extenuating circumstances both positive and negative... pretty much as we have now actually.
A good example of how things can go wrong is the 3 strikes and you're out law in California. Third crime means a life sentence even if it is relatively minor. What this means is that if you are going to jail for life anyway there is no reason to moderate your behaviour whilst committing a crime. A 2015 study found it led to a 33% increase in fatal attacks on police officers.
Goodness me, the punishment for hate vs normal crime argument is still running? OK:
Long term, the goal surely has to be for there to be no special treatments for anyone, and all individuals to be treated the same. In the short term, there is an argument, for example, for increased sentences to be handed out for specific crimes that society has issues with and is trying to stamp out for big picture reasons - hate crime being an obvious example. But these can only ever be short term solutions, because eventually the additional punishment itself becomes the problem in race relations, since not everyone is getting treated equally.
The question is whether the current societal situation really warrants those additional penalties at the expense of a minor level of ill feeling from the majority. I'd say probably yes for the time being, but we really should be thinking about an exit strategy, and my impression is that certain sectors of current political opinion think the differential treatment is a Good Thing in the long term. Which is a problem.
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".
Dippy was a friend of my brother’s. it was a huge tragedy. But his uncle was an evil man who saw an opportunity and took it.
Politico.com - Newsom shifts into defense mode as California recall takes shape If the recall qualifies, the governor could find himself in campaign mode for the next two years while trying to navigate the state through crisis.
It’s a waste of time. He’ll win. Grey, thank God, was unique and there’s no one like the Governator to take him on
Suspect you are correct re: Gavin Newsom surviving.
However, his plunge in the polls - from approx 2/3 approval to half or slightly less - shows the real & potential peril of being governor (or president or prime mininster) in the Age of Covid.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence.
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"?
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"?
I'd been in Holland for about 10 minutes in my life when I was first engaged in conversation/gossip about the British royal family, which they seem to follow like a soap opera. Similar in Germany. Their version hardly registers in comparison.
Globally it's a big brand, for better and worse, as far as monarchies go. Lot harder to escape attention perhaps.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Spot on. Although I fear you won’t find much support for your view on here, where Covid authoritarians dominate the discourse.
By the way, I’m calling BS on this study. A government source is someone with an agenda. Let’s see how much leverage they they have when cases are into the low thousands per day.
Currant Bun say over 65 to be invited for jabbing from Monday.
Do you mean, starting to invite people from the over 65 category individually? If so, this is already underway in some parts of the country.
Or do you mean, inviting any over 65s who haven’t been contacted to go to the website and book an appointment? This is normally done when most of the cohort have been vaccinated, and if so, suggests that this group have been mostly done much quicker than expected.
This is possible. The UK PRA used to lead on a lot of international financial regulation. Partly because other jurisdictions didn't have the resources to do something different and partly because there is value in commonality. I get the impression that's happening less now,
Incidentally US regulation is so massively prescriptive only lawyers can understand it. It's untranslateable to any other jurisdiction.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
I anticipate being stuck in something resembling the old tier 2, from whenever the loosening of the garotte has gone as far as the Government dares to go (and I think it's still going to be many months before we get hospitality back) right through until Spring 2022. And that's assuming that their ongoing preoccupation with foreign travel doesn't end with a mutant SuperCovid disaster and yet another lockdown.
We can't live with all this bullshit forever, but frankly if the price of eventual escape (and a bit of room to breathe in the meantime) is more shitty masks and social distancing for a while longer then I can learn to live with it. Just so long as there are no more bloody lockdowns.
First and foremost I just want rid of house arrest and the opportunity to get on a train and visit family I've not seen since September. It would be nice to think that's not too bloody much to ask.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence.
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"?
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"?
It's crazy.
No I am suggesting that all such crimes could have had an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim and be treated seriously as a result. Someone who commits GBH against one person that fortunately through no intent of the attacker just happened to not result in a serious physical psychological effect on the victim shouldn't be released sooner just because unintentionally it didn't result in as much harm so they go and do it again.
Furthermore I don't view a solo attacker as mitigation. If there's a gang all members of the gang should be fully prosecuted, but if its one shit on his own so should he by himself.
Currant Bun say over 65 to be invited for jabbing from Monday.
Do you mean, starting to invite people from the over 65 category individually? If so, this is already underway in some parts of the country.
Or do you mean, inviting any over 65s who haven’t been contacted to go to the website and book an appointment? This is normally done when most of the cohort have been vaccinated, and if so, suggests that this group have been mostly done much quicker than expected.
I believe they saying all over 65s will be now getting their letter.
Currant Bun say over 65 to be invited for jabbing from Monday.
Do you mean, starting to invite people from the over 65 category individually? If so, this is already underway in some parts of the country.
Or do you mean, inviting any over 65s who haven’t been contacted to go to the website and book an appointment? This is normally done when most of the cohort have been vaccinated, and if so, suggests that this group have been mostly done much quicker than expected.
As posted earlier all over 65s with the exception of me that I know have had an invite already. Some done last week.
Comments
How you read the other groupings is up to you, which makes it a very badly written poll. If you wanted to see how people responded with the name Ireland you'd need to say Ireland as an option. It didn't do that.
Whatever. I think the UK is destined for quasi-war with the EU anyway. Might as well kick off on a field both sides know well, the Field of Athenry, only with machine guns
*blows whistle*
Mitigation can and should represent the range of seriousness.
Our system is designed around the view that prison should really be a last resort.
You're arguing that in many cases prison should be the default and that in itself presents many challenges and problems. Not least in the amount of reoffending.
I understand your point of view but I worry it ends in simply punishment for punishment sake and I believe that puts us all at greater risk.
The person who attacked you. Would you rather:
1. He receives a light sentence and never commits commits another crime.
2. He receives a heavy sentence and goes onto a life of crime, in and out of prison.
I know this is an extreme example and ignores such things as deterrent but what would you prefer?
Those who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs offences etc - I would abolish all those crimes in the first place and none of them would be in prison if it were up to me.
But for serious offenders, yes there should be a serious punishment if need be - and if that means more prison places then we should invest more money in doing the job properly.
A senior finance source said: “The industry is not begging the EU for access anymore. It would be great, it would make life a little easier, but now the focus is on making the UK as competitive as possible.
“It is not about deregulation, but looking for things to iron out or change or make life more efficient, to cut the cost of doing business. It might reduce the chance of a bank leaving, or make a boss thinking about hiring more trading staff or getting a new office think more about the UK.”
Britain is competing with Asia and New York in global markets, so the aim should be to make companies think about doing business here instead of overseas."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/11/london-double-markets-beyond-eu-locked-brussels/
For what its worth I was informed that he had a string of convictions as long as his arm. I haven't followed what happened to him but I know I wasn't his first victim and I certainly expect I wasn't his last.
The problem though at the minute is that unless an "aggrevating factor" box is ticked then it is automatically treated less seriously by default.
If there's mitigation then let that play out, but if there's not then the punishment should fit the crime.
FWIW repeat convictions is also an aggravating factor. It seems that your frustration is simply with the length of prison sentences generally rather than the fact that racial motivation is also an aggravating factor.
My frustration is that crimes like GBH should be taken seriously automatically. If they're only taken seriously if there's an "aggravating factor" then something is broken.
'Ticking the box' as you call it is going to be quite easy unless you are a first-time offender.
All GBH should automatically be taken seriously. All murder should be. All drugs "offences" should not be.
A criminal conviction, especially for GBH, is in reality a life-long affliction. You will struggle to get good jobs (or any job) and will generally have a worse standard of living for the rest of your life.
But I'll butt out now.
Why does someone's race suddenly matter if you think locking people up makes no difference?
As I said, a shameful story with something for everyone.
https://twitter.com/lookner/status/1359982953334456324
One of the key things we need to do is change listing rules so that we are able to attract secondary listings from EU based firms and win many, many more of our own tech company listings as well as tech companies based in Europe. The investors who invest in London exist and want to put their money in but there is a complete dearth of viable companies because listing rules are too stringent and tech companies are deciding to list in the US, I can think of two recent examples where this has even led to a previously UK based company following the listing and moving their HQ and tax domicile to the US for reasons of convenience and investor demands. London was never in the running becuase of outdated listing rules for premium listings.
If the cause of an assault is "hate" then why not targeted rehabilitation to get rid of the hate? If you believe rehabilitation works and if you believe that you have identified the reason someone offended then why add to the jail sentence, why not rehabilitate away the reason you think the offence happened?
i.e. none
Because foreign affairs is a reserved matter.
Your proposed system is that parliament should set the "default" punishment and then give only certain proscribed reasons why punishment should be reduced.
They are similar but I'm almost certain that your proposed system would result in some massively out of whack sentences and undoubtedly a higher prison population and with that increased costs and reoffending rates.
I think it would make more sense to look at individual offences and decide where the "holes" in the current system are. For example your unfortunate experience. Without knowing the specifics it's hard to argue either way.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
I might find self-immolation more pleasant.
Another problem with your proposal.
Currently if a crime is committed against against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public it's likely it will lead to a higher sentence.
However in your proposed system there would be no further punishment for such a thing. So what you will get is "punishment inflation". The Daily Mail screaming that those who commit crimes against emergency workers should have higher sentences and before you know it you have aggravating factors again.
Their version hardly registers in comparison.
I think the use of the 'hate crime' supplement should be reserved for cases where colour, religion, sexuality etc are clearly the cause of the attack rather than just the happenstance of the victim. Under those circumstances I have no problem at all with a more severe sentence.
A white man murdering a black man should be treated the same as a black man murdering a white man. Whether it was racially motivated or a robbery gone wrong.
Premeditated GBH either way should be treated the same
I’m not sure (but you are the lawyer!) that premeditated GBH should get treated the same as a bar fight that gets out of control. But the race of the participants in either case is not a relevant factor
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Warning. You probably don't need to see this folks.
I said that offenders should be given the opportunity to offer mitigation and the judge (or magistrates) should be able to take that and adjudicate it on their own merits. I wouldn't have a list of mitigation reasons, I would allow the judiciary to adjudicate that. If the mitigation is due to a reason that doesn't neatly fall into any individual category should it be ignored?
For my specific example it was June 2004, I was an MSc student at University and we had watched the Euro 2004 England football game earlier in the day. As it was June all the main student union bars were closed because the undergrads had gone home for the summer but as a postgrad we were staying on so we went out in the evening to a nightclub I'd never been to before. We arrived early and that's the last thing I remember before waking up in hospital.
From what I've been told and the court testimony, we'd gone onto the dance floor and someone (all recorded on CCTV) walked across the club up to us, swung a punch that sent me to the floor, shattering my eye socket in one go. Nothing had happened, no words exchanged, it was all unprovoked. Remarkably the bouncers reacted by throwing out the attacker - but I didn't stand up after being punched and my friends moved me and there was a pool of blood at which point one of my friends ran out of the club, hailed a Police Officer off the street who nicked my attacker. He gave no explanation as to why he had done it.
Next thing I knew was waking up in hospital in an MRI machine unable to see what was going on, I was unable to see for a couple of days and was told I'd be blinded in that eye if I sneezed at all within a fortnight.
However I'm willing to bet a majority of the population do support such a thing, considering it was brought in to much fanfare.
All who are victims of a crime should be treated equally seriously. That applies equally to a nurse being attacked in the course of her duties or a shop assistant being attacked in the course of theirs.
However, my point was that they are not comparable.
You seemed to be suggesting that it was the crime that should be the driving force behind the sentence and not the motivation for the crime. So I pointed out two instances of the same crime, both motivated by different things, to which you agreed that they are not comparable.
However aren't we discussing whether society should deem it more worthy of greater punishment if an offence is committed for reasons we find even more abhorrent?
For example, a black person killing a white person simply because they are white. That is arguably different to a black person killing a white person for another reason.
I agree with some posters on here that perhaps the evidential burden should be higher but I don't disagree with having such things as aggravating factors. It doesn't negate the seriousness of the offence otherwise, it's just one of many potential factors that make the offence MORE serious.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1359993374292459524
Long term, the goal surely has to be for there to be no special treatments for anyone, and all individuals to be treated the same. In the short term, there is an argument, for example, for increased sentences to be handed out for specific crimes that society has issues with and is trying to stamp out for big picture reasons - hate crime being an obvious example. But these can only ever be short term solutions, because eventually the additional punishment itself becomes the problem in race relations, since not everyone is getting treated equally.
The question is whether the current societal situation really warrants those additional penalties at the expense of a minor level of ill feeling from the majority. I'd say probably yes for the time being, but we really should be thinking about an exit strategy, and my impression is that certain sectors of current political opinion think the differential treatment is a Good Thing in the long term. Which is a problem.
It's an assault type which is every bit as bad as something motivated for any other reason
A good example of how things can go wrong is the 3 strikes and you're out law in California. Third crime means a life sentence even if it is relatively minor. What this means is that if you are going to jail for life anyway there is no reason to moderate your behaviour whilst committing a crime. A 2015 study found it led to a 33% increase in fatal attacks on police officers.
This is orders of magnitude worse than when the Tory twitter account renamed itself Fact Check UK.
This is messing with the integrity of the (postal) vote.
https://twitter.com/Simmons__/status/1359965557005709313
Wiki tells me there was a Tsar of Bulgaria nicknamed 'the Cabbage', but that's just weird, not insulting.
However, his plunge in the polls - from approx 2/3 approval to half or slightly less - shows the real & potential peril of being governor (or president or prime mininster) in the Age of Covid.
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"?
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"?
It's crazy.
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
By the way, I’m calling BS on this study. A government source is someone with an agenda. Let’s see how much leverage they they have when cases are into the low thousands per day.
Or do you mean, inviting any over 65s who haven’t been contacted to go to the website and book an appointment? This is normally done when most of the cohort have been vaccinated, and if so, suggests that this group have been mostly done much quicker than expected.
Incidentally US regulation is so massively prescriptive only lawyers can understand it. It's untranslateable to any other jurisdiction.
We can't live with all this bullshit forever, but frankly if the price of eventual escape (and a bit of room to breathe in the meantime) is more shitty masks and social distancing for a while longer then I can learn to live with it. Just so long as there are no more bloody lockdowns.
First and foremost I just want rid of house arrest and the opportunity to get on a train and visit family I've not seen since September. It would be nice to think that's not too bloody much to ask.
Furthermore I don't view a solo attacker as mitigation. If there's a gang all members of the gang should be fully prosecuted, but if its one shit on his own so should he by himself.
1) To steal my mobile
or
2) They hate Pakis
It's going to hurt me the same either way.
Ice, speed and stupidity.