I hope various surgeries, vax centres and so forth realise just how quickly we can likely get through the 65 - 69 cohort. The letters to group 5 & 6 should probably have gone out together.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Really? Are you still running with this nonsense? The choice was whether or not we allowed our hospital system to collapse, completely overwhelmed by very sick patients, not all of whom would even be old, let alone "very sick". It was a no brainer and the government had no choice despite its desires to the contrary.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
Around one in 80 people in private households in England had Covid in the week to 6 February, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics out today.
That's a lower proportion than the week before - suggesting the levels of infection are going down.
In Wales, around one in 85 people are estimated to have had Covid in the same week, while the figure is one in 75 in Northern Ireland.
Meanwhile, the estimate for Scotland is one in 150 people - showing that Scotland's infection levels are lower than the rest of the UK.
Actor Hugh Bonneville says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab, and confirms he has already seen a script for a sequel.
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Actor Hugh Bonneville says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab, and confirms he has already seen a script for a sequel.
"says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab"
I hope various surgeries, vax centres and so forth realise just how quickly we can likely get through the 65 - 69 cohort. The letters to group 5 & 6 should probably have gone out together.
The 65-69 cohort is 2.9m, so can be done (1st jab) in 7 days at current rates.
Cohort 5 is much larger (7.3m) but letters/texts/calls should probably start next week.
Too early to invite cohort 6 yet, it would just cause chaos.
Anecdote, I was just on the phone to a neighbour who is 67... "Have you had your jab invite yet?" I asked. "No, not yet [ping] - oh, hang on, it's literally just come through as we speak!"
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
I expect he will take some votes from the SNP on the constituency vote and some votes from the SCons on the list
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
I expect he will take some votes from the SNP on the constituency vote and some votes from the SCons on the list
But Mr Sarwar is in only one constituency, and AFAIK not also on the list.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Really? Are you still running with this nonsense? The choice was whether or not we allowed our hospital system to collapse, completely overwhelmed by very sick patients, not all of whom would even be old, let alone "very sick". It was a no brainer and the government had no choice despite its desires to the contrary.
On what evidence do you base the claim that simply keeping our children in schools throughout the pandemic would have led to the the collapse of our health service?
There's evidence, surely, that our health service effectively collapsed anyway. Look at the latest data on backlogs of treatment that are not covid.
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
I expect he will take some votes from the SNP on the constituency vote and some votes from the SCons on the list
But Mr Sarwar is in only one constituency, and AFAIK not also on the list.
If he becomes SLab leader he will be figurehead for SLab in every Scottish constituency, Labour only won 3 constituencies at Holyrood out of 73 in 2016, he can surely add a few more to that total
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
All depends on supply.
I hope when supply is flowing we move to a similar scheme to Israel, where basically by mid afternoon they know if they are going to have spare and you can then queue up regardless of who you are.
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
There is no non unionist majority of the electorate. But I do agree that Labour needs to win back voters from the SNP in their previous strongholds to make a mark, especially in Glasgow and the surrounding area where they have lost so much ground but still have opportunities.
Is Sarwar the man to do it? Not sure. My conversations with him during Indyref1 were short and banal.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
I would prefer key workers first. I think they deserve it.
In terms of stopping spread probably best to do police, prison officers, supermarket workers, teachers and other in person public facing jobs next too. I have no idea how big the 18 - 49 key worker group is though (Some will have been captured by groups 4 and 6).
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
There is no non unionist majority of the electorate. But I do agree that Labour needs to win back voters from the SNP in their previous strongholds to make a mark, especially in Glasgow and the surrounding area where they have lost so much ground but still have opportunities.
Is Sarwar the man to do it? Not sure. My conversations with him during Indyref1 were short and banal.
Actor Hugh Bonneville says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab, and confirms he has already seen a script for a sequel.
Unless you are on the cast I don't think you are going to stop it. Of course you don't have to watch it. I avoided both the series and the first film.
Actor Hugh Bonneville says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab, and confirms he has already seen a script for a sequel.
"says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab"
I don't think he means what he has said there.
Indeed. Die-hard* anti-vaxxers will protect us from Downton 2. Who'da thunk it?
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
This is a concern but surely the question from a public policy point of view is whether or not they have had the same opportunities to have the vaccine. If they haven't that is shameful. If they have but have chosen not to take it up that is regrettable but also a matter of choice.
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
Phase 2 will be key workers that have to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. Teachers, police, supermarket workers, transportation workers and anyone who works in the supermarket supply chain. That's probably about 5m people so it would only take a couple of weeks but I think it would have a hugely positive effect on national morale and the infection rate.
Yes, good header. The Cons are billy no mates. Hence why I like BOTH these bets - Cons largest party at 1.8, Starmer next PM at 5. Given the next election will barring accidents be Johnson v Starmer, this is a killer brace. They can both win - quite likely in fact - but they cannot both lose. It's a win vs flat profile. Total smug city.
This is a really good point. Starmer being replaced seems the only risk...
And that is extremely unlikely. Unless there is a black swan event pertaining to health or scandal he will surely be given his crack at it. He was the clear choice of the party - members and MPs - and his polling and performance is solid even as he leaves his top gears untouched for now. No, not worried about that.
Hang on... there's another risk which changes my calculation somewhat.
Boris gets replaced as leader of the Tories by Sunak/Patel/Gove whoever. *before the next election*. This replacement = next PM.
Next PM then leads the Tories to a loss vs. Starmer.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Comres poll has Anas Sarwar ahead of Monica Lennon on net favourability for the Scottish Labour leadership election, the result of which is due on 27th February.
Of the 2 main candidates, Sarwar is -7% and Lennon on -11%, both candidates are ahead of outgoing SLab leader Richard Leonard who is on -22%, Sarwar also would have a higher approval rating than Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross who is on -10%, in terms of being the lead Unionist to take on Sturgeon.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
There is no non unionist majority of the electorate. But I do agree that Labour needs to win back voters from the SNP in their previous strongholds to make a mark, especially in Glasgow and the surrounding area where they have lost so much ground but still have opportunities.
Is Sarwar the man to do it? Not sure. My conversations with him during Indyref1 were short and banal.
And that is the fundamental difference between us.
I punish actions. You criminalise thoughts and beliefs.
To quote Bacon: I do not want to open windows into men’s souls
Thoughts and beliefs not actioned are clearly a private matter. Here we're considering whether a racial motive for a crime adds to its gravity. You say it doesn't for you and this is what I am probing.
Let's macro it up. Genocide. This for most people has a uniquely awful place in the annals of atrocities. But not for you, right? To you it's just about the numbers. The horror of the Holocaust is purely the 6m. That it was targeted at wiping out the Jews adds nothing. Ditto China and the Uighurs today. The crime is adequately described simply by the quantum of victims not by who they are and why chosen.
Are you sure that such a view stacks up?
Yes.
Killing 6m civilians is horrendous whether it be Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, those with brown eyes, the educated, or just selected at random to terrorise the population.
Yes it was bad against the Jews - but it would have been equally evil against anyone else.
I agree. Same reason I am opposed to extra sentences for hate crimes. I don't care if somebody was murdered by a neo-Nazi thug or a ghetto thug trying to steal his wallet. The same dead body, the same number of grieving relatives, the same damage. So the same sentence.
But not the same terror instilled in the victim's sub-group as in a racially-motivated killing.
They all instill the same terror.
If there's a section of town you are too afraid to go to because people are frequently murdered.there for their wallets are you saying that instills no terror? What about for the poor saps who live there?
It is about terrorising a group not an individual who might be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The government wants to promote a society wherein each group (black, gay, jew, etc) does not feel terrorised and there is no discrimination of or between groups and hence it is harsher on crimes which seek to terrorise or discriminates against those groups.
Equally, and critically, it is harsher because it wants to deter perpetrators, by force (of the increased sentence) from seeking to terrorise or discriminate against those groups.
Terrorising black people is worse than terrorising one person (black or white) walking home from the pub on his own. And if that person was targeted because he was black (or white) then it is the same because it would be a "hate crime".
Again, not difficult to understand.
You are right, it is not difficult to understand, the Government wants to discourage certain types of behaviour against groups that have been persecuted.
The problem people have with hate crimes (or, at least I do), is that it effectively creates inequality amongst victims. Part of the healing process for many victims is the retribution element and feeling as though their attacker has been duly punished. If I face the same injury from an attack than, e.g. a Black person, but my attacker gets a lower sentence than the attacker of the Black person simply because the latter is Black, I would feel I have been treated as a lesser person by the justice system.
Yes I can see that. But the bloke who bottled you (god forbid) didn't in so doing instill, or seek to instill a terror in all people who exactly match your grouping. That is what a hate crime is. And hence the perpetrator of a hate crime will get a harsher sentence than the bloke who bottled you. That is just how it is. And rightly so, I'm afraid.
'Blokes walking along the road when the pubs have turned out' is not an identifiable group.
Black, gay, jew, red hair - these are identifiable groups which, to a lesser (red hair) or greater (the others) extent have suffered institutional discrimination and violence in the past. It is to discourage this and to reassure those groups that such behaviour is treated more harshly than other crimes.
And by all means if @Philip_Thompson struggles with the concept or says "what about left handed carpenters with beards?" that is fine by me.
No need to say "left handed carpenters with beards" we have plenty of real world examples already.
"What about prostitutes"?
Prostitutes have been targetted for centuries. The Police didn't take Peter Sutcliffe's murders as seriously as they should have because they thought he was "only" going after prostitutes. Is attacking a prostitute because they're a prostitute a hate crime? I honestly don't know if they're a protected group, but is it any better or worse than attacking others?
Prostitutes have suffered institutional discriminate and violence in the past haven't they?
Take all crime seriously - whether its an attack against a gay man, a black man, or a disabled woman, or a prostitute . . . take it all seriously and deal with it all. Don't pick winners and losers.
As @Gallowgate seems amazingly prepared and willing to remind you, all crime is taken seriously.
And there are aggravating and mitigating factors.
I have never sought to determine the boundaries of "hate crimes" - perhaps in court killing only prostitutes would be an aggravating factor.
And as I've said to Gallowgate - I do not accept or believe that all crime is taken seriously.
If all crime was taken seriously in the first place there'd be no reason to take more seriously crimes against protected groups.
That is irrelevant to the point we are discussing plus it makes you sound like a 70-yr old Daily Mail reader. "If all crime was taken seriously in the first place" - listen to you.
Go to your nearest town centre, twat the first person you see round the head with a Louisville Slugger, then take all your clothes off and sit down and then ponder on how seriously crime is taken.
Whats wrong with being a 70 year old Daily Mail reader?
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
I don't think so. The allure of the office is always too strong. How many have resigned in the way you imagine?
I think Johnson is in a fairly unique position. He's had three historic crises thrown at him in the first two years of his premiership: a completely deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament, negotiating our exit from and subsequent trade agreement with the EU, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Regardless of what you think of Johnson and whether another leader could have done better, he can argue he's 'solved' those crises and won three historic victories: by winning a solid majority, by getting a functional trade agreement, and by ensuring the UK was at the front of the queue for vaccine supplies. I can't think of any other PM who has had similar 'luck' in their first years in office.
However, the outlook for the next few years is uniquely, historically shit. There's still a lot of very boring work to do on building up the trade arrangements with the EU. There will have to be very tough decisions made about how we pay for the worst deficit in our peacetime history. And finally the Government has to come up with a way to keep the country together in the face of secessionist sentiment in Scotland.
So I'd say the reason other PMs haven't done what Johnson is likely to do is because noy many other PMs haven't had such big historical events in their early term that they can use to build their legacy, and those PMs that did, didn't have such an obviously awful future time in office clearly telegraphed to them in advance.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
This is a concern but surely the question from a public policy point of view is whether or not they have had the same opportunities to have the vaccine. If they haven't that is shameful. If they have but have chosen not to take it up that is regrettable but also a matter of choice.
You are suggesting that BAME people have full moral agency. That will never do.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
What terrible price is she paying beyond the dreadful burden of sanctimony ?
You may price your liberty cheaply. That's up to you. Our forbears sacrificed their lives so we could live free. Some of us value that sacrifice.
No irony at all in the fact that it is precisely the survivors of the last lot of forebears to do the sacrificing that you now want to polish off so you can go to the footie. None at all.
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
Phase 2 will be key workers that have to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. Teachers, police, supermarket workers, transportation workers and anyone who works in the supermarket supply chain. That's probably about 5m people so it would only take a couple of weeks but I think it would have a hugely positive effect on national morale and the infection rate.
Basically what I'm saying is that office workers under 50 will be last in the queue. Sucks for me but tbh, if the pubs are open I'm going to go with or without a vaccine.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Really? Are you still running with this nonsense? The choice was whether or not we allowed our hospital system to collapse, completely overwhelmed by very sick patients, not all of whom would even be old, let alone "very sick". It was a no brainer and the government had no choice despite its desires to the contrary.
On what evidence do you base the claim that simply keeping our children in schools throughout the pandemic would have led to the the collapse of our health service?
There's evidence, surely, that our health service effectively collapsed anyway. Look at the latest data on backlogs of treatment that are not covid.
We know that school children can catch and transmit the virus. Mixing at school means that the virus is spread throughout the community to their families and friends. The NHS did not run out of ICUs or hospital beds but it was a close run thing in some areas. Had we accepted a few hundred thousand more cases to keep schools open many, many more would have died, and not just of Covid. It will be bad enough already.
I think Johnson is in a fairly unique position. He's had three historic crises thrown at him in the first two years of his premiership: a completely deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament, negotiating our exit from and subsequent trade agreement with the EU, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Regardless of what you think of Johnson and whether another leader could have done better, he can argue he's 'solved' those crises and won three historic victories: by winning a solid majority, by getting a functional trade agreement, and by ensuring the UK was at the front of the queue for vaccine supplies. I can't think of any other PM who has had similar 'luck' in their first years in office.
He engineered the first 2, and if you think the trade agreement is done I have a bridge to sell you.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die from the virus should bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect the rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
Phase 2 will be key workers that have to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. Teachers, police, supermarket workers, transportation workers and anyone who works in the supermarket supply chain. That's probably about 5m people so it would only take a couple of weeks but I think it would have a hugely positive effect on national morale and the infection rate.
Basically what I'm saying is that office workers under 50 will be last in the queue. Sucks for me but tbh, if the pubs are open I'm going to go with or without a vaccine.
Good chunk of closest friends and relatives, workplace, parents and even the person on the till at the local One Stop should be done by that point though - so the risk of catching it goes down even if you're in "group 11" as we both will be.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Yes, good header. The Cons are billy no mates. Hence why I like BOTH these bets - Cons largest party at 1.8, Starmer next PM at 5. Given the next election will barring accidents be Johnson v Starmer, this is a killer brace. They can both win - quite likely in fact - but they cannot both lose. It's a win vs flat profile. Total smug city.
This is a really good point. Starmer being replaced seems the only risk...
And that is extremely unlikely. Unless there is a black swan event pertaining to health or scandal he will surely be given his crack at it. He was the clear choice of the party - members and MPs - and his polling and performance is solid even as he leaves his top gears untouched for now. No, not worried about that.
Hang on... there's another risk which changes my calculation somewhat.
Boris gets replaced as leader of the Tories by Sunak/Patel/Gove whoever. *before the next election*. This replacement = next PM.
Next PM then leads the Tories to a loss vs. Starmer.
Both bets lose?
Yes. But my strong view is that Johnson WILL lead the Cons into the next election. If I have that wrong, all bets are off. Or rather I'll be wishing all bets are off.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die form should virus can bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect he rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
Then you'll be back to what we were talking about a couple of days ago. Good luck with a policy that will, effectively, discriminate against minorities.
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
Phase 2 will be key workers that have to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. Teachers, police, supermarket workers, transportation workers and anyone who works in the supermarket supply chain. That's probably about 5m people so it would only take a couple of weeks but I think it would have a hugely positive effect on national morale and the infection rate.
Basically what I'm saying is that office workers under 50 will be last in the queue. Sucks for me but tbh, if the pubs are open I'm going to go with or without a vaccine.
Good chunk of closest friends and relatives, workplace, parents and even the person on the till at the local One Stop should be done by that point though - so the risk of catching it goes down even if you're in "group 11" as we both will be.
Yes, exactly. If everyone else in the pub has been immunised our level of personal risk is tiny, even tinier than now so I don't mind waiting. The only way I'd begin agitating for a faster schedule is if the government do something like allow vaccine passports before everyone has been offered it.
"Home Secretary Priti Patel says she would refuse to take a knee in support of Black Lives Matter as she says attacks on statues were 'dreadful' and tells protesters 'there are other ways to have those discussions'"
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
and my point @Philip_Thompson is that both scenarios would appear in the statistics as "GBH" so using those statistics to adduce an emotional response to "low injust sentences" ignores the reality that those statistics reflect a whole range of different scenarios. It is just isn't accurate.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die form should virus can bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect he rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
Then you'll be back to what we were talking about a couple of days ago. Good luck with a policy that will, effectively, discriminate against minorities.
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
I don't think "vaccine passports" for domestic use are - or ever were - a realistic possibility. It's not the BAME angle killing it. It was never alive. A classic example of an idea that looks a goer in theory but does not survive contact with the mess of the real world UK 2021 style.
@Philip_Thompson did your attacker plead guilty at the earliest opportunity? Because if so, he would have received an automatic 1/3 reduction on his sentence.
You may disagree with that also but it's there for the specific purpose of saving the police and the justice system's time and money, enabling them to investigate and prosecute other crimes. Without it there would be no incentive for anyone to plead guilty.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die form should virus can bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect he rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
Then you'll be back to what we were talking about a couple of days ago. Good luck with a policy that will, effectively, discriminate against minorities.
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
No-ones discriminating against minorities. Having the vaccine isn't contingent on the colour of your skin or your religion or anything else. It's not the governments fault, your fault, my fault or anyone's fault that (some) minorities aren't taking-it up. I'm sorry to say that if (some) minority groups want to believe whatever bullshit they read or have been told about the vaccine on Twitter or elsewhere then that's on them.
Why should the overwhelming majority of the population have to suffer, including minorities which have had the vaccine because a small section of our population, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it.
Is it discriminatory against those who refuse? Absolutely! And I include all refuseniks in that whether they're white, black, brown, blue or green. We've all suffered far too much in many ways to pander to a minority of all, which includes "minorities" who refuse to see sense.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
and my point @Philip_Thompson is that both scenarios would appear in the statistics as "GBH" so using those statistics to adduce an emotional response to "low injust sentences" ignores the reality that those statistics reflect a whole range of different scenarios. It is just isn't accurate.
Got to say I admire the way (and the manner in which) you have persisted with this debate since yesterday. It helps that I have found that, after initial doubts, I agree with your position. But never the less a sterling effort.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
I do wonder whether the Windrush debacle has had some impact on old black people from the Caribbean - that they simply don't trust the government/authority. I'm not suggesting this would be a major factor; just a contributory factor to vaccine reluctance.
Anyway enough debate. I need to write some f*cking cover letters
Time well spent though, some nice examples for you for the job interview "think of a time when you experienced disagreement and explain how you dealt with it" questions
I think Johnson is in a fairly unique position. He's had three historic crises thrown at him in the first two years of his premiership: a completely deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament, negotiating our exit from and subsequent trade agreement with the EU, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Regardless of what you think of Johnson and whether another leader could have done better, he can argue he's 'solved' those crises and won three historic victories: by winning a solid majority, by getting a functional trade agreement, and by ensuring the UK was at the front of the queue for vaccine supplies. I can't think of any other PM who has had similar 'luck' in their first years in office.
He engineered the first 2, and if you think the trade agreement is done I have a bridge to sell you.
Vaccine has gone well so far.
Looks like a fluke though.
I did go on to say the trade agreement is not done and will need to be developed, which clearly is not particularly interesting to Johnson.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
and my point @Philip_Thompson is that both scenarios would appear in the statistics as "GBH" so using those statistics to adduce an emotional response to "low injust sentences" ignores the reality that those statistics reflect a whole range of different scenarios. It is just isn't accurate.
Got to say I admire the way (and the manner in which) you have persisted with this debate since yesterday. It helps that I have found that, after initial doubts, I agree with your position. But never the less a sterling effort.
You really can't have people changing their minds on the back of what they read on PB! Where on earth would that end? 😉
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Sacrifices have been made by the young for the old in this pandemic.
True, but every young person I know has older relatives they are keen to protect.
It is the famous pb Selection Effect.
Most young people I know are bending -- sometimes flouting -- the regulations.
Just like in the real world, every person does not have a massive share portfolio.
I would imagine that there is a fair amount of double think going on -
18 year old - "Yes, save granny at any cost. Sorry, got to go, my mate has a rave at his house......"
I've seen similar behaviour and words from people across a range of ages.
One of the mistakes politicians and commentators, including most of us on here, make is in assuming that people behave in a logical manner based on considered positions which they stick to at all times.
I doubt there are any of us who would follow the example of the ancient Chinese general Ts`ao Ts`ao who condemned himself to death for accidently breaking his own laws.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
I don't think so. The allure of the office is always too strong. How many have resigned in the way you imagine?
I think Johnson is in a fairly unique position. He's had three historic crises thrown at him in the first two years of his premiership: a completely deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament, negotiating our exit from and subsequent trade agreement with the EU, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Regardless of what you think of Johnson and whether another leader could have done better, he can argue he's 'solved' those crises and won three historic victories: by winning a solid majority, by getting a functional trade agreement, and by ensuring the UK was at the front of the queue for vaccine supplies. I can't think of any other PM who has had similar 'luck' in their first years in office.
However, the outlook for the next few years is uniquely, historically shit. There's still a lot of very boring work to do on building up the trade arrangements with the EU. There will have to be very tough decisions made about how we pay for the worst deficit in our peacetime history. And finally the Government has to come up with a way to keep the country together in the face of secessionist sentiment in Scotland.
So I'd say the reason other PMs haven't done what Johnson is likely to do is because noy many other PMs haven't had such big historical events in their early term that they can use to build their legacy, and those PMs that did, didn't have such an obviously awful future time in office clearly telegraphed to them in advance.
Brexit “thrown at him” in the same sense that someone trying to piss out of a train window (in the days when they had such) gets urine “thrown at them”?
How does everyone reckon it's going to work once we are through groups 1 - 9 ? New group 10 for key workers ? Free for all ?
Phase 2 will be key workers that have to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. Teachers, police, supermarket workers, transportation workers and anyone who works in the supermarket supply chain. That's probably about 5m people so it would only take a couple of weeks but I think it would have a hugely positive effect on national morale and the infection rate.
Basically what I'm saying is that office workers under 50 will be last in the queue. Sucks for me but tbh, if the pubs are open I'm going to go with or without a vaccine.
Good chunk of closest friends and relatives, workplace, parents and even the person on the till at the local One Stop should be done by that point though - so the risk of catching it goes down even if you're in "group 11" as we both will be.
Yes, exactly. If everyone else in the pub has been immunised our level of personal risk is tiny, even tinier than now so I don't mind waiting. The only way I'd begin agitating for a faster schedule is if the government do something like allow vaccine passports before everyone has been offered it.
Given this Government surely it's a given that the Government will screw up in a way that stops 30-40 year old parents taking their children abroad on holiday.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
Spanish flu did not kill predominantly the old. It killed those between 20-40, predominantly
Anyway enough debate. I need to write some f*cking cover letters
Time well spent though, some nice examples for you for the job interview "think of a time when you experienced disagreement and explain how you dealt with it" questions
I don't think admitting that I spend a lot of my time on a political betting forum would count particularly in my favour.
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
@Philip_Thompson did your attacker plead guilty at the earliest opportunity? Because if so, he would have received an automatic 1/3 reduction on his sentence.
You may disagree with that also but it's there for the specific purpose of saving the police and the justice system's time and money, enabling them to investigate and prosecute other crimes. Without it there would be no incentive for anyone to plead guilty.
It also saves witnesses and victims the trauma of having to testify in court, possibly being cross-examined by a fairly hostile barister.
Two more nominations for priority at the start of the next phase: under 50 asthmatics who use an inhaler (oral steroids only included on group six of phase one) and those whose pre-existing mental health conditions have been exacerbated by lockdown.
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
My thoughts, pretty much. Though, I think he'll bog off next year, rather than this.
Like the Donald, Boris really wants to be a winner.
He will want to say, "I walloped Labour three times, twice in London, once at the Generals. I gave Remain a punch on the nose at the Referendum. And I smashed COVID out of the park, did Brexit & gave the EU a bloody good cudgelling -- I never lost."
The closer GE 2024 looks, the more likely it is SKS versus AN Other.
The golden rule of politics is choose your opponents wisely. Boris was up against the First and Second Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Ken and Jeremy.
SKS is not great, but he is not the Third Horseman.
This is pretty persuasive.
The other big matter in his inbox, of course, is the future of the union (ie UK) and, as I'm sure he's very well aware, he's not optimally placed to tackle it.
Trouble is PMs invariably have to be extracted from No 10 at the point of the barrel so logical as this sounds, maybe not so persuasive after all. We all remember Enoch's dictum.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
No I'm not suggesting that both should get the same 5+ years in prison, since I've said consistently from the beginning that of course mitigating factors should be taken into account.
However I would say that I really feel that accidental and deliberate GBH etc should be separate classes of crime - if intent is important (and I agree with you 100% that it is) then the onus on proving the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt should fall upon the prosecution.
Two more nominations for priority at the start of the next phase: under 50 asthmatics who use an inhaler (oral steroids only included on group six of phase one) and those whose pre-existing mental health conditions have been exacerbated by lockdown.
I thought they discovered that those on oral steroids are actually much less likely to end up in hospital?
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Yep. Which is, I think, about where we are with it. There will be no domestic vaccine passport. There will be no confining non-takers to home and lifting lockdown for everyone else. People can forget about all that. Just not happening. But there will be a stigma associated with refusing. And international travel issues too. Hopefully the overall take-up will be sufficient to end widespread community transmission. I think it will be.
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
Those odds look crazy to me, but I don't feel the draw is a gift. Adverse weather isn't expected is it?
6.4 feels right to me in the subcontinent with clear weather but 4.1 for a team that could have enforced the follow-on and won handsomely just a few days ago is incredible.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Yep. Which is, I think, about where we are with it. There will be no domestic vaccine passport. There will be no confining non-takers to home and lifting lockdown for everyone else. People can forget about all that. Just not happening. But there will be a stigma associated with refusing. And international travel issues too. Hopefully the overall take-up will be sufficient to end widespread community transmission. I think it will be.
I can see a case - although I am not necessarily advocating it without further discussion - for making having the vaccine a condition of obtaining or continuing in a job that puts you in direct close contact with at risk groups - so medical staff and care home staff for a start. Obviously there would have to be exemptions for genuine groups who are advised not to take the vaccine. But otherwise I think it could come under a duty of care challenge for the NHS and the care home operators.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die form should virus can bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect he rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
Then you'll be back to what we were talking about a couple of days ago. Good luck with a policy that will, effectively, discriminate against minorities.
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
No-ones discriminating against minorities. Having the vaccine isn't contingent on the colour of your skin or your religion or anything else. It's not the governments fault, your fault, my fault or anyone's fault that (some) minorities aren't taking-it up. I'm sorry to say that if (some) minority groups want to believe whatever bullshit they read or have been told about the vaccine on Twitter or elsewhere then that's on them.
Why should the overwhelming majority of the population have to suffer, including minorities which have had the vaccine because a small section of our population, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it.
Is it discriminatory against those who refuse? Absolutely! And I include all refuseniks in that whether they're white, black, brown, blue or green. We've all suffered far too much in many ways to pander to a minority of all, which includes "minorities" who refuse to see sense.
The problem you will hit with that policy is that the official definitions of discrimination will be tripped by such as system.
You are asking people working in the apparatus of government to go against "best practise" and potentially commit career suicide.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Yep. Which is, I think, about where we are with it. There will be no domestic vaccine passport. There will be no confining non-takers to home and lifting lockdown for everyone else. People can forget about all that. Just not happening. But there will be a stigma associated with refusing. And international travel issues too. Hopefully the overall take-up will be sufficient to end widespread community transmission. I think it will be.
Perhaps it may be a good idea to eventually update the daily death statistics to include deaths of those offered but who refused the vaccine. And a advertising campaign "Offered the vaccine and refused? The clocks ticking!." With a nice picture of Death and his scythe in the background.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Yep. Which is, I think, about where we are with it. There will be no domestic vaccine passport. There will be no confining non-takers to home and lifting lockdown for everyone else. People can forget about all that. Just not happening. But there will be a stigma associated with refusing. And international travel issues too. Hopefully the overall take-up will be sufficient to end widespread community transmission. I think it will be.
One possible outcome is the barring refuseniks from pubs, clubs, shops, museums, galleries, restaurants – basically anywhere interesting or fun – rights of admission reserved. Show your vax card at the door otherwise do one?
@Philip_Thompson did your attacker plead guilty at the earliest opportunity? Because if so, he would have received an automatic 1/3 reduction on his sentence.
You may disagree with that also but it's there for the specific purpose of saving the police and the justice system's time and money, enabling them to investigate and prosecute other crimes. Without it there would be no incentive for anyone to plead guilty.
I think so. It was a pretty open and shut case anyway, he was rather literally caught red handed and the entire thing was crystal clear on CCTV. Add back on the third if it was taken off and it still doesn't reach a year though.
Anyway enough debate. I need to write some f*cking cover letters
Time well spent though, some nice examples for you for the job interview "think of a time when you experienced disagreement and explain how you dealt with it" questions
I don't think admitting that I spend a lot of my time on a political betting forum would count particularly in my favour.
Your kidding.
Drive you up the wall as he may, be fundamentally mistaken as he often is, nevertheless discussions with @Philip_Thompson invariably require paying attention to the subject and scrupulous arguments to be put forward.
I would say they are a great training for a career in the law.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
No I'm not suggesting that both should get the same 5+ years in prison, since I've said consistently from the beginning that of course mitigating factors should be taken into account.
However I would say that I really feel that accidental and deliberate GBH etc should be separate classes of crime - if intent is important (and I agree with you 100% that it is) then the onus on proving the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt should fall upon the prosecution.
This is where it gets a bit complicated.
There are already two separate GBH offences - sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The problem is that proving intent to specifically cause *GBH* is actually quite a high evidential burden.
You can be prosecuted on the lesser offence, intent to cause some harm, which lead to GBH, much more easily.
Hence why most convictions are of the lesser offence.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
Yep. Which is, I think, about where we are with it. There will be no domestic vaccine passport. There will be no confining non-takers to home and lifting lockdown for everyone else. People can forget about all that. Just not happening. But there will be a stigma associated with refusing. And international travel issues too. Hopefully the overall take-up will be sufficient to end widespread community transmission. I think it will be.
One possible outcome is the barring refuseniks from pubs, clubs, shops, museums, galleries, restaurants – basically anywhere interesting or fun – rights of admission reserved. Show your vax card at the door otherwise do one?
This isn't going to happen.
I can't wait for my jab, but any notion that vaccinated or not is going to be a real thing after next spring is for the birds. The odd person in the UK will catch covid, in a fluke event, and a few every year might even die. But it will be an exception. And most importantly, it won't make the news.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
No I'm not suggesting that both should get the same 5+ years in prison, since I've said consistently from the beginning that of course mitigating factors should be taken into account.
However I would say that I really feel that accidental and deliberate GBH etc should be separate classes of crime - if intent is important (and I agree with you 100% that it is) then the onus on proving the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt should fall upon the prosecution.
This is where it gets a bit complicated.
There are already two separate GBH offences - sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The problem is that proving intent to specifically cause *GBH* is actually quite a high evidential burden.
You can be prosecuted on the lesser offence, intent to cause some harm, which lead to GBH, much more easily.
Hence why most convictions are of the lesser offence.
I have no problem with the prosecution being obligated to provide evidence if intent is to be part of the sentencing then so they should.
To reverse the question - if the evidential burden can't be met then is it really appropriate to add time to someone's sentence without evidence?
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
England the value bet there.
On those odds undoubtedly. The first test win was built on an extraordinary innings by Joe Root who not only scored big but also scored quickly enough to get the time for the win. Counting on a repeat of that seems a bit optimistic but I would make the match pretty much 50:50 with much (too much really) depending on the toss. It would be really great to see Moeen having a good game, England need him with both the ball and the bat.
Only 48% of black people of over 80s have been vaccinated, compared to 82% white, 62% South Asian for the same age group.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
It shouldnt be compulsory to have the vaccine but it should be the next level down from compulsory IMO, which is people being very strongly encouraged to have it, and you may not be able to travel to other countries if you dont, (much as I dislike the idea of vaccine passports).
If people don't want the vaccine then fine. But by law they should be confined to their homes.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die form should virus can bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect he rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
Then you'll be back to what we were talking about a couple of days ago. Good luck with a policy that will, effectively, discriminate against minorities.
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
No-ones discriminating against minorities. Having the vaccine isn't contingent on the colour of your skin or your religion or anything else. It's not the governments fault, your fault, my fault or anyone's fault that (some) minorities aren't taking-it up. I'm sorry to say that if (some) minority groups want to believe whatever bullshit they read or have been told about the vaccine on Twitter or elsewhere then that's on them.
Why should the overwhelming majority of the population have to suffer, including minorities which have had the vaccine because a small section of our population, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it.
Is it discriminatory against those who refuse? Absolutely! And I include all refuseniks in that whether they're white, black, brown, blue or green. We've all suffered far too much in many ways to pander to a minority of all, which includes "minorities" who refuse to see sense.
The problem you will hit with that policy is that the official definitions of discrimination will be tripped by such as system.
You are asking people working in the apparatus of government to go against "best practise" and potentially commit career suicide.
I get that but it's not as if the apparatus of government hasn't done things in the past 12 months which were previously considered beyond the pale, or never even thought of before.
The government being the government can change whatever official definitions they like. Just change the law - it's not as if they haven't done that to put us all under effective house-arrest.
Two more nominations for priority at the start of the next phase: under 50 asthmatics who use an inhaler (oral steroids only included on group six of phase one) and those whose pre-existing mental health conditions have been exacerbated by lockdown.
I thought they discovered that those on oral steroids are actually much less likely to end up in hospital?
Yes, but like a lot of more up to date evidence, not everything is making it through to policy. Good example is fomites. Now seen as very unlikely to be a major vector of infection, so there is no real need for the constant theatre of surface cleaning, and excessive hand sanitising that is still happening. I'm not saying washing hands is a bad thing, but the extreme levels are crazy, as is isolating parcels for 3 days before opening, or washing all your shopping when you get home. It would probably not be wise to change the messaging at this stage of the pandemic ("U-turn") but personally I have little fear of surfaces any more.
"Home Secretary Priti Patel says she would refuse to take a knee in support of Black Lives Matter as she says attacks on statues were 'dreadful' and tells protesters 'there are other ways to have those discussions'"
Anyway @Philip_Thompson answer the question. Are you really suggesting that someone being sentenced to 4 years in prison is the justice system not "taking the offence seriously" compared to say, 4.5 years in prison?
And if not, at what point is the cut off? Because realistically these are the differences we are talking about. There seems to be a level of Daily Mail-esque scare mongering here that a white person committing GBH on a black person will get 5 years in prison and a black person committing GBH on a white person will get no prison sentence. It doesn't work like that.
That's not the cut off. It isn't 4 years versus 4.5 years - for most offences its no jail time at all versus potentially years.
The fact that most people don't go to prison is because most crimes are low level.
It's also government policy that prison should always be a last resort.
Indeed because we don't take crime seriously - hence why when we do it is the exception not the rule.
What's the median custodial sentence actually served for GBH? Do you think its closer to 4 years or 4.5 years? Or closer to 2 months?
You do realise that a person can be convicted of GBH from a single punch in anger that accidentally causes moderate damage?
A person can also be convicted of GBH from a sustained and purposeful attack that causes serious damage.
They are in many cases the same offence.
Therefore the mean is pointless because it covers both scenarios. Stop misusing statistics you don't understand.
Both should be taken seriously. We already have ABH as a different crime, GBH is already meant to be a more serious crime in the first place and you chose it as the example.
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
I'm sorry but you're showing your ignorance here and misunderstanding of the GBH offence.
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
Except you haven't provided any counterevidence. If you want to provide some statistics as to what proportion of GBH convictions were for accidents then please be my guest.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
You're the one asserting that crimes are not taken seriously. I'm not saying that on the whole sentences are not "low", but that's government policy on the whole.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
No I'm not suggesting that both should get the same 5+ years in prison, since I've said consistently from the beginning that of course mitigating factors should be taken into account.
However I would say that I really feel that accidental and deliberate GBH etc should be separate classes of crime - if intent is important (and I agree with you 100% that it is) then the onus on proving the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt should fall upon the prosecution.
This is where it gets a bit complicated.
There are already two separate GBH offences - sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The problem is that proving intent to specifically cause *GBH* is actually quite a high evidential burden.
You can be prosecuted on the lesser offence, intent to cause some harm, which lead to GBH, much more easily.
Hence why most convictions are of the lesser offence.
The only time I've been in a courtroom so far was for a GBH case: I was on the jury.
Comments
A single punch to the face, even if acting in perceived self-defence or on instinct, can lead to a GBH conviction.
Likewise a random but purposeful attack intending to cause serious damage can lead to a GBH conviction.
Assuming they are both prosecuted under s.20, which isn't unlikely, they would both appear as part of the "sentenced for GBH" statistic.
However one is clearly more serious than the other and justifies a higher sentence.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
You also chose possession with intent to supply as another example, I didn't choose it, and the median sentence for that is unless I'm misreading it . . . 0 prison time. None whatsoever.
That's a lower proportion than the week before - suggesting the levels of infection are going down.
In Wales, around one in 85 people are estimated to have had Covid in the same week, while the figure is one in 75 in Northern Ireland.
Meanwhile, the estimate for Scotland is one in 150 people - showing that Scotland's infection levels are lower than the rest of the UK.
Actor Hugh Bonneville says there will be a second Downton Abbey film when everyone offered a vaccine takes the jab, and confirms he has already seen a script for a sequel.
Just so I'm clear, is your current proposition that once Anas wins there'll be a recovery for SLab and the Union will be saved? Will that recovery involve guddling about in the shrinking pool of Unionist voters at the expense of the SCons or will he be attracting new votes from the non Unionist majority of the electorate?
GBH can and is prosecuted for a wide variety of crimes ranging from accidental harm to purposeful attacks.
This is the problem. You're using statistics to justify your point of view without understanding the statistics.
I don't think he means what he has said there.
If we can't convince certain demographics over the next few months, come next winter the NHS will be filling up again with those people.
Cohort 5 is much larger (7.3m) but letters/texts/calls should probably start next week.
Too early to invite cohort 6 yet, it would just cause chaos.
Anecdote, I was just on the phone to a neighbour who is 67...
"Have you had your jab invite yet?" I asked.
"No, not yet [ping] - oh, hang on, it's literally just come through as we speak!"
On what evidence do you base the claim that simply keeping our children in schools throughout the pandemic would have led to the the collapse of our health service?
There's evidence, surely, that our health service effectively collapsed anyway. Look at the latest data on backlogs of treatment that are not covid.
https://twitter.com/AntheaTurner1/status/1359924090384093196?s=20
New group 10 for key workers ?
Free for all ?
I hope when supply is flowing we move to a similar scheme to Israel, where basically by mid afternoon they know if they are going to have spare and you can then queue up regardless of who you are.
Is Sarwar the man to do it? Not sure. My conversations with him during Indyref1 were short and banal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/flu-memory/507287/
Sacrifices have been made by the young for the old in this pandemic.
(*Channeling my inner @HYUFD there.)
Boris gets replaced as leader of the Tories by Sunak/Patel/Gove whoever. *before the next election*. This replacement = next PM.
Next PM then leads the Tories to a loss vs. Starmer.
Both bets lose?
However, the outlook for the next few years is uniquely, historically shit. There's still a lot of very boring work to do on building up the trade arrangements with the EU. There will have to be very tough decisions made about how we pay for the worst deficit in our peacetime history. And finally the Government has to come up with a way to keep the country together in the face of secessionist sentiment in Scotland.
So I'd say the reason other PMs haven't done what Johnson is likely to do is because noy many other PMs haven't had such big historical events in their early term that they can use to build their legacy, and those PMs that did, didn't have such an obviously awful future time in office clearly telegraphed to them in advance.
This is why behaviour (and attitudes) are going to change very quickly when their older relatives are protected.
I said already that mitigation should be an option for eg accidental harm - though the attack I was a victim of that I spoke about last night that got a six month sentence was no accident and the problem is my story is not an unusual one. That's an anecdote but it is all to real reality of how crime is dealt with in this country - serious sentences of years are exceptional not the norm.
Do you propose that we should defund cancer research because it disproportionately benefits the elderly?
Vaccine has gone well so far.
Looks like a fluke though.
As everyone's life has been put on hold for the past 12 months, by-law, to protect those most likely to die from the virus, then when an opportunity comes along so that people can live their lives again those most likely to die from the virus should bloody-well have it. If they don't, don't expect the rest of us to put up with this nonsense any more. Their lives should be restricted so the rest of us can get on with it.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Most young people I know are bending -- sometimes flouting -- the regulations.
Just like in the real world, every person does not have a massive share portfolio.
I was merely pointing out that "GBH" is not what you think. The Section 20 GBH offence relies upon the harm done and not the intention to cause that harm.
You've moved the goalposts somewhat anyway. The original discussion was about aggravating factors and you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance in how the criminal justice system works and how specific crimes can cover a whole range of situations.
So let's give you an example:
A man is getting out of a taxi drunk, keys in hand, having just thrown up in the taxi. The taxi driver makes a move to take the keys from the man's hand and in response the man punches the taxi driver. Due to having the keys in his hand, the punch causes a laceration on the taxi driver's face.
That is GBH.
The whole point of aggravating and mitigating factors is that the above scenario would be given a lesser punishment than a random attack on someone.
You seem to be suggesting that both scenarios should receive the same 5+ years in prison?
This is exactly why the government has ruled out vaccination passports for everyday usage.
The only reason anything about vaccine passports is being discussed, is that when travelling aboard they will soon be mandatory to many destinations. If not all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9253283/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-says-refuse-knee-support-Black-Lives-Matter.html
18 year old - "Yes, save granny at any cost. Sorry, got to go, my mate has a rave at his house......"
I've seen similar behaviour and words from people across a range of ages.
Just trying to keep you honest too. 😀
You stated it as a truism "No point spending time on this ... blah, blah ", but in fact your statement was incorrect.
You may disagree with that also but it's there for the specific purpose of saving the police and the justice system's time and money, enabling them to investigate and prosecute other crimes. Without it there would be no incentive for anyone to plead guilty.
Why should the overwhelming majority of the population have to suffer, including minorities which have had the vaccine because a small section of our population, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it.
Is it discriminatory against those who refuse? Absolutely! And I include all refuseniks in that whether they're white, black, brown, blue or green. We've all suffered far too much in many ways to pander to a minority of all, which includes "minorities" who refuse to see sense.
I doubt there are any of us who would follow the example of the ancient Chinese general Ts`ao Ts`ao who condemned himself to death for accidently breaking his own laws.
Work as a key/care worker? Don't go raving.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are:
India 1.66
England 4.1
Draw 6.4
The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
The other big matter in his inbox, of course, is the future of the union (ie UK) and, as I'm sure he's very well aware, he's not optimally placed to tackle it.
Trouble is PMs invariably have to be extracted from No 10 at the point of the barrel so logical as this sounds, maybe not so persuasive after all. We all remember Enoch's dictum.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1360209889331736578?s=21
However I would say that I really feel that accidental and deliberate GBH etc should be separate classes of crime - if intent is important (and I agree with you 100% that it is) then the onus on proving the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt should fall upon the prosecution.
6.4 feels right to me in the subcontinent with clear weather but 4.1 for a team that could have enforced the follow-on and won handsomely just a few days ago is incredible.
You are asking people working in the apparatus of government to go against "best practise" and potentially commit career suicide.
Drive you up the wall as he may, be fundamentally mistaken as he often is, nevertheless discussions with @Philip_Thompson invariably require paying attention to the subject and scrupulous arguments to be put forward.
I would say they are a great training for a career in the law.
There are already two separate GBH offences - sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The problem is that proving intent to specifically cause *GBH* is actually quite a high evidential burden.
You can be prosecuted on the lesser offence, intent to cause some harm, which lead to GBH, much more easily.
Hence why most convictions are of the lesser offence.
I can't wait for my jab, but any notion that vaccinated or not is going to be a real thing after next spring is for the birds. The odd person in the UK will catch covid, in a fluke event, and a few every year might even die. But it will be an exception. And most importantly, it won't make the news.
To reverse the question - if the evidential burden can't be met then is it really appropriate to add time to someone's sentence without evidence?
On those odds undoubtedly. The first test win was built on an extraordinary innings by Joe Root who not only scored big but also scored quickly enough to get the time for the win. Counting on a repeat of that seems a bit optimistic but I would make the match pretty much 50:50 with much (too much really) depending on the toss. It would be really great to see Moeen having a good game, England need him with both the ball and the bat.
The government being the government can change whatever official definitions they like. Just change the law - it's not as if they haven't done that to put us all under effective house-arrest.
It would probably not be wise to change the messaging at this stage of the pandemic ("U-turn") but personally I have little fear of surfaces any more.