Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Remember the May 2017 locals when TMay was totally dominant and conquering all before her – politica

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 16 in General
imageRemember the May 2017 locals when TMay was totally dominant and conquering all before her – politicalbetting.com

Yesterday I attended, online. what was one of the annual political events before the pandemic – the briefing on the coming May elections by the Tory peer, Lord Hayward. There were no elections last year and in England and Wales there have not been any local by-elections.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    So Boris is going to have to do a lot of expectation management as it's highly likely the Tories are starting from a high point that might be hard to match let alone beat.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    A rare QTWAIN as the first post rather than the thread header.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578
    The Tories had an 11% lead in 2017 in the county elections but Labour had a 1% lead in the 2016 districts, so on that basis you would expect Labour gains in the county elections but Tory gains in the district elections up again this year.

    I understand the county counts will be on the Thursday night but the district count will not be until the Saturday, so the story may be good for Starmer overnight on polling day but improve for the Tories at the weekend
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    A rare QTWAIN as the first post rather than the thread header.
    It's just so depressing. Quite rightly people criticise the Tories for stirring up a culture war. And then Labour oblige them with nonsense like this. :disappointed:
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112
    edited March 16
    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    He probably wants power more than the moral high ground, and rightly so.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    FPT
    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    He probably wants power more than the moral high ground, and rightly so.
    Yeah, but I'm not sure this helps him win power. It just reinforces prejudices.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    A rare QTWAIN as the first post rather than the thread header.
    It's just so depressing. Quite rightly people criticise the Tories for stirring up a culture war. And then Labour oblige them with nonsense like this. :disappointed:
    I'm confused. What has Kier's tweet got to do with the "culture war"?

    Misleading statistics aside, he's merely saying that the bill doesn't go far enough in protecting women. If that's controversial well god help us.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    I had failed to recall how well May did in the locals before she screwed the general. This may not be the catastrophe for SKS that I was anticipating.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    DavidL said:

    I had failed to recall how well May did in the locals before she screwed the general. This may not be the catastrophe for SKS that I was anticipating.

    The turnaround in only six weeks between the two votes was astonishing, dare I say unprecedented. SKS has quite the low bar for success in May.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560
    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,781
    Latest antibody report is out -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk16march2021

    Average sample date is middle of Feb so a month out of date, but has a figure of 34%, up from 20% 1 month earlier, so we're likely somewhere near 50% coverage at the moment.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    As I said it costs money.

    And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560
    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    The reality is that there's probably never been a better time to be a criminal than under this government: the chances of being caught and investigated are vanishingly small. And even if you are charged it will take 3 years or longer to get to court thus increasing your chances of getting off. And if you are sent to prison, you won't serve anything like the sentence you are given.

    So all in all being a criminal is a good career opportunity now.

    (Sarcasm mode off now, just in case anyone was wondering.)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
    Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
    Does he not want to have the moral high ground?
    A rare QTWAIN as the first post rather than the thread header.
    It's just so depressing. Quite rightly people criticise the Tories for stirring up a culture war. And then Labour oblige them with nonsense like this. :disappointed:
    I'm confused. What has Kier's tweet got to do with the "culture war"?

    Misleading statistics aside, he's merely saying that the bill doesn't go far enough in protecting women. If that's controversial well god help us.
    It's all about identity. Now, I do think violence against women is worse than violence against men and I'm happy to see any scumbag convicted of beating up his girlfriend serve longer in prison than someone who has fight in a pub, for example. But Starmer's dubious stat is arguing against a straw man. Labour cannot help themselves but turn it into "you don't support x". That's a culture war.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 9,242
    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Not sure that is the sad part!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    As I said it costs money.

    And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
    The Garden Bridge waves hello. Boris is really only interested in a good headline and his mates getting money.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Some fantastic French humour here:
    https://twitter.com/tc1415/status/1371770237532659713
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    The reality is that there's probably never been a better time to be a criminal than under this government: the chances of being caught and investigated are vanishingly small. And even if you are charged it will take 3 years or longer to get to court thus increasing your chances of getting off. And if you are sent to prison, you won't serve anything like the sentence you are given.

    So all in all being a criminal is a good career opportunity now.

    (Sarcasm mode off now, just in case anyone was wondering.)
    Oh I believe that most people scamming money off people get away completely scott free.

    The only reason some of the Microsoft scams are being closed down is because MS are doing everything they can to kill them off.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    "Michelle Obama says it 'wasn't a complete surprise' to hear Meghan Markle's claims of 'racism' within Royal Family"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9365159/Michelle-Obama-urges-Harry-Meghan-forgive-royals.html
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories had an 11% lead in 2017 in the county elections but Labour had a 1% lead in the 2016 districts, so on that basis you would expect Labour gains in the county elections but Tory gains in the district elections up again this year.

    I understand the county counts will be on the Thursday night but the district count will not be until the Saturday, so the story may be good for Starmer overnight on polling day but improve for the Tories at the weekend

    I expect a similar result to last time in the county elections.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,781
    Prince Philip has walked out of hospital - good chance to get a letter from the Queen now
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,012
    "Another factor has been the constraints of campaigning which has probably hit the LDs the most."

    So the stories about the Libs ignoring the restrictions other parties agreed to are wrong?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    Let them use sugered water.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,691
    maaarsh said:

    Latest antibody report is out -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk16march2021

    Average sample date is middle of Feb so a month out of date, but has a figure of 34%, up from 20% 1 month earlier, so we're likely somewhere near 50% coverage at the moment.

    Indeed, with all that that entails for increasing the downwards pressure on the R rate. Good news.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,009
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    The reality is that there's probably never been a better time to be a criminal than under this government: the chances of being caught and investigated are vanishingly small. And even if you are charged it will take 3 years or longer to get to court thus increasing your chances of getting off. And if you are sent to prison, you won't serve anything like the sentence you are given.

    So all in all being a criminal is a good career opportunity now.

    (Sarcasm mode off now, just in case anyone was wondering.)
    @Cyclefree Thank you for writing your informative thread headers over the last few days. I was greatly offended by the idea of curfews for men as I felt that for a lot of men we have to think about where we walk, and the only time I was in a serious fight (almost arrested) was when I stepped in when someone was harassing my ex. However your article reminded me of the continual sexual harassment of women.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,691
    I'm surprised and delighted. I genuinely thought this was 'it' for the old fella.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,913
    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,781

    maaarsh said:

    Latest antibody report is out -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk16march2021

    Average sample date is middle of Feb so a month out of date, but has a figure of 34%, up from 20% 1 month earlier, so we're likely somewhere near 50% coverage at the moment.

    Indeed, with all that that entails for increasing the downwards pressure on the R rate. Good news.
    Yep - makes the suggestion that each step of unlocking will move R above 1 pretty silly frankly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Good for them.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    maaarsh said:

    Prince Philip has walked out of hospital - good chance to get a letter from the Queen now

    What kind of cybernetic augmentation did they have to fit to achieve that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Good for them.
    It's noteworthy that the Conservative family is starting to come together again post Brexit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    As I said it costs money.

    And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
    The Garden Bridge waves hello. Boris is really only interested in a good headline and his mates getting money.
    I know BBC Panorama takes a frame and fits their picture into it, however yesterday's rather poor expose of PPE contract corruption was nonetheless shocking. Gareth Davies from the NAO conceded Government secrecy regarding the procurement "fast lane" could look, dare I say it (my word, not his) dishonest.

    A Labour Government/Administration would, quite rightly, be castigated as morally and fiscally corrupt. Why are this Government allowed a free pass?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Definitely another one for Dr Venkman's list.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    As I said it costs money.

    And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
    The Garden Bridge waves hello. Boris is really only interested in a good headline and his mates getting money.
    I know BBC Panorama takes a frame and fits their picture into it, however yesterday's rather poor expose of PPE contract corruption was nonetheless shocking. Gareth Davies from the NAO conceded Government secrecy regarding the procurement "fast lane" could look, dare I say it (my word, not his) dishonest.

    A Labour Government/Administration would, quite rightly, be castigated as morally and fiscally corrupt. Why are this Government allowed a free pass?
    Because everyone could see that it was a life and death emergency. But it cannot become the routine.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    In the Times today, there is piece on these locals by Eleni Courea and Patrick Maguire. How much credibility you give it might be coloured by their final paragraph:

    "More than 40 million people are expected to vote on May 6...."

    Hint guys: 32 million voted across the UK in the 2019 general election. Your expectations are going to be dashed!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    Andy_JS said:

    "Michelle Obama says it 'wasn't a complete surprise' to hear Meghan Markle's claims of 'racism' within Royal Family"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9365159/Michelle-Obama-urges-Harry-Meghan-forgive-royals.html

    That's actually remarkably tactful and nuanced by Michelle Obama, if you read the detail and bear in mind she's an American and has a pre-existing relationship with them.

    It's in marked contrast to the vomit-inducing statement of the odious Hillary Clinton, who demonstrates all the tact and judgement in hers that explains why she failed to make it to the White House. Twice.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 2,448
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
    kinbalu, I don't often agree with you (though you write so politely and reasonably that I only ever feel the most cordial of disagreements) but in this analysis I think you are spot on. It's government by focus group, again, but the focus group contains only one individual. I think she's a retired PA from Darlington.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,488
    GOD BLESS YOU SIR! 🎺🎺🎺🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928
    EMA to hold press conference at 1.00pm UK time
  • CookieCookie Posts: 2,448
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    As I said it costs money.

    And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
    The Garden Bridge waves hello. Boris is really only interested in a good headline and his mates getting money.
    I think this unfair.
    Boris in Macmillan. He likes doing things which are fun, and which aren't a bore. I have heard too many examples of things he has done which will never get headlines. He's bascially PM for the lols.
    Which is probably a better reason to be PM than out of sheer rage (Brown), because he thought he'd be rather good at it (Cameron), or what I can only imagine was some sort of masochism (May).
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,773
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
    This. I also get the impression having read the discourse surrounding Brexit, that there appears to be this belief that this group have suffered uniquely in comparison to all other groups in society. Which I always found a bit odd, as many groups have really struggled under the current economic settlement for a while now.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,560
    Germany (2) and Spain (4) multiple days data:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Good for them.
    It's noteworthy that the Conservative family is starting to come together again post Brexit.
    It's also noteworthy that Labour have completely failed to cultivate ties with the grumpy Tory MPs who want an end to all of these oppressive laws and would vote with the opposition to do so.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    EMA to hold press conference at 1.00pm UK time

    If they say the right things, their children will be released at 2.00 pm.....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    edited March 16
    I had not seen this from a few days ago.

    "During a debate on Austrian television on Sunday, EMA board director Christa Wirthumer-Hoche said it is not known whether the vaccine is safe and effective.

    "I strongly discourage the approval of a national emergency authorisation," Wirthumer-Hoche stated, adding that certain European countries that were already using Sputnik V were "comparable to playing Russian roulette"."


    Did the Russians get their apology?

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210308-eu-medical-official-warns-of-sputnik-jab-russian-roulette
  • pingping Posts: 297
    edited March 16
    Tips for Cheltenham, anyone?

    My only bet so far is on Discordantly @ 12/1ew in the 2.40
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Good for them.
    It's noteworthy that the Conservative family is starting to come together again post Brexit.
    It's also noteworthy that Labour have completely failed to cultivate ties with the grumpy Tory MPs who want an end to all of these oppressive laws and would vote with the opposition to do so.
    It shouldn’t have been too difficult to find something on which most of the opposition and a few Tory backbench rebels could agree. The problem would be trying to describe and then sell it, in a way that didn’t come across as trying to play base politics in the face of a pandemic.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,199
    FPT:
    DavidL said:

    This post from Keir is quite crap.
    “Over 50%” is weird. And who is saying that it is a “rare occurrence”?

    https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371732944394539010?s=21

    I am about 95% sure that is not true either. Far more men suffer violence than women. Of course far, far more of the perpetrators of violence are men but that is a different statement.
    There is more violent crime against women recorded by the police, mainly due to more offences without injury being recorded. The crime survey on the other hand suggests there is significantly more, a ratio of 3:2, violent crime committed against men. Homicide victims are nearly 3/4 male. So SKS is being a little selective with the statistics he is using there.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    Ros Atkins video = 400k views and rapidly rising.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    DavidL said:

    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.

    Even Tory MP Charles Walker has spoken out against it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 3,137
    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What you are saying is that, if I remember correctly, Plato is essentially right, and it isn't possible to have a functioning democracy for very long, because the people don't put the work in and allow themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.

    This is a thoroughly depressing conclusion. It's too early for that, and I'm not about to start drinking yet.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402

    I'm surprised and delighted. I genuinely thought this was 'it' for the old fella.
    Piers will be relieved that Hazza and Megs' evil plan to piss Phil off fails miserably.

    '"It's crass beyond belief," Piers said, before speculating on whether US network CBS would ever agree to postpone it. "If something, god forbid, happens [to Prince Philip] they'll want to exploit it."

    A stunned Susanna exclaimed: "No!"'

    'It's going to be a two-hour whine-a-thon," Piers fumed' as part of his 2 year whine-a-thon about Meghan.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    edited March 16
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    DougSeal said:

    These two lying down together? They end times really ARE here...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1371753776391020545

    Good for them.
    It's noteworthy that the Conservative family is starting to come together again post Brexit.
    It's also noteworthy that Labour have completely failed to cultivate ties with the grumpy Tory MPs who want an end to all of these oppressive laws and would vote with the opposition to do so.
    It shouldn’t have been too difficult to find something on which most of the opposition and a few Tory backbench rebels could agree. The problem would be trying to describe and then sell it, in a way that didn’t come across as trying to play base politics in the face of a pandemic.
    But the point is that they have to work very quickly to start building up those relationships so they can strike these kinds of idiotic policies down. There is absolutely no majority in the house for these anti-freedom protest laws but Labour are too useless to organise the rebels into opposition.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,913
    edited March 16

    EMA to hold press conference at 1.00pm UK time

    If they say the right things, their children will be released at 2.00 pm.....
    I would imagine they would be holding their current line. If something untoward had turned up then you don't want to be responsible for another few thousand people getting vaccinated with something unsafe and would halt it now. Hard to see what would have changed since last night - we will see.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 1,224
    edited March 16
    On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.

    The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.

    If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
    kinbalu, I don't often agree with you (though you write so politely and reasonably that I only ever feel the most cordial of disagreements) but in this analysis I think you are spot on. It's government by focus group, again, but the focus group contains only one individual. I think she's a retired PA from Darlington.
    Sort of like the ITV sitcom, "The Happy Apple"?
    "Nancy is a junior secretary,
    In an advertising agency..."

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/TheHappyApple

    In terms of winning and retaining power, it's not a bad strategy. The loyalists are stuck with you anyway, and some of them will be so happy with Winning that they never notice that the winning doesn't deliver them much of what they wanted winning to achieve. So the way to maximise your vote is to identify the swingable voters and superserve them.

    There's nothing new or especially shameful about that- Thatcher reached out to the C2s of Stevenage, Blair kept Mondeo Man in mind. What's different is the degree of targeting- an absurd amount of speechifying and a barrelful of pork on an ever-more minute sliver of the population.

    This may be a terrible government largely consisting of appalling people, but it's a damn good political operation. Irresistible force, meet immovable object.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
    True, more legal aid defence lawyers just isn't as catchy but will be essential if we are going to use weekend and evening courts to sort out the backlog.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    DavidL said:

    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.

    If it gets voted through, that would be most unlikely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    ping said:

    Tips for Cheltenham, anyone?

    My only bet so far is on Discordantly @ 12/1ew in the 2.40

    Wouldn't back anything Gordon Elliot is on
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.

    Even Tory MP Charles Walker has spoken out against it.
    Which bits? It's entirely possible I have missed a nasty or two, especially if it is hidden in the interminable schedules.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 1,224
    DavidL said:

    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.

    An authoritarian, populist and unwise crime bill from an authoritarian, populist and unwise government. Who'd have thought it?
  • glwglw Posts: 7,199
    edited March 16

    On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.

    The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.

    If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.

    No the Crime Survey does not agree with Starmer, he appears to be quoting Home Office recorded crime data. The Crime Survey says men are more likely to be victims of violent crime by a 3:2 ratio.

    The CSEW estimated that 60% of victims of violence were male, with 40% being female in the year ending March 2020 (data not shown). This is notably different from the Home Office Data Hub, which showed more violence against the person offences recorded by the police had female victims (56%) than male victims (44%). A likely reason for the difference between the sources is that females are more commonly the victims in cases of domestic abuse, which accounts for around one-third of violence recorded by the police. The Home Office Data Hub showed that in 70% of offences with a female victim the perpetrator was an intimate partner or other family relative. In comparison, the perpetrator was an intimate partner or other family relative in 45% of offences with a male victim (Nature of violent crime appendix tables).


    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

    I agree we should use the Crime Survey for the reasons you outlined.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    Remember we have a firebreak from any school related transmission coming up shortly. That'll have been a factor in all the planning.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    edited March 16
    Off topic: Has anyone been watching the America's Cup.

    This is the first time I have really followed it for some time - via Youtube. Watching a couple of match-racing boats whizzing around Auckland at 60mph is diverting.

    But the traditional problem - who to support now that we have been knocked out?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. Al, that does remind me a bit of psychologists and brain size.

    We have the largest brains!

    Nope, that's elephants!

    We have the largest brains as a proportion of size!

    Nope. Dolphins.

    We have the greatest degree of encephalisation?

    ... fine.

    Huzzah! Humans are the smartest!

    If the figures were reversed he'd be using the other set of figures. Men as victims are unfashionable.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,199
    edited March 16
    *duplicate*
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
    True, more legal aid defence lawyers just isn't as catchy but will be essential if we are going to use weekend and evening courts to sort out the backlog.
    Zoom seems a popular way to conduct various court proceedings in the USA. Has it been used here at all ?
    I assume it can't be done for jury trials.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052

    DavidL said:

    I had a quick skim of this bill. It runs to over 300 pages. There is probably some vaguely useful stuff in it. I personally don't have any problems with the provisions facilitating the recovery of material from mobile devices, for example.

    The statute thing (clause 46) has rightly been ridiculed. The whole public order section 54-60 is deeply problematic as is the whole idea of "serious violence reduction orders" 139-140, I really don't like minimum sentences as a concept and their wider application to whole life sentences for certain classes of crime is going to be a massive headache for our Prisons in 10-20 years.

    All in all it strikes me as authoritarian, populist and unwise. If Gove did get moved to the Home Office I suspect most of it would disappear.

    An authoritarian, populist and unwise crime bill from an authoritarian, populist and unwise government. Who'd have thought it?
    In these times of flux it's quietly reassuring that some things will always stay the same
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
    kinbalu, I don't often agree with you (though you write so politely and reasonably that I only ever feel the most cordial of disagreements) but in this analysis I think you are spot on. It's government by focus group, again, but the focus group contains only one individual. I think she's a retired PA from Darlington.
    Yes. Where once our politicians would tremble before Rupert Murdoch, they now live in mortal fear of Mrs Duffy. Progress of sorts, I suppose.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.

    Deception: because it won't work.
    Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
    Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.

    Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
    The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
    kinbalu, I don't often agree with you (though you write so politely and reasonably that I only ever feel the most cordial of disagreements) but in this analysis I think you are spot on. It's government by focus group, again, but the focus group contains only one individual. I think she's a retired PA from Darlington.
    It's a shame it's not a depressed PB poster from Darlington - at least I could point out that justice delayed isn't really justice.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    .
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
    I think that's wrong.
    It would probably take an entire 5 year term to see results that the public actually noticed (so there's little chance of any serious reform under the current lot), but investment in a working criminal justice system, and properly resourcing (for example) fraud investigation and prosecution would in time prove more popular than the current cynical mess.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,913
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
    True, more legal aid defence lawyers just isn't as catchy but will be essential if we are going to use weekend and evening courts to sort out the backlog.
    Zoom seems a popular way to conduct various court proceedings in the USA. Has it been used here at all ?
    I assume it can't be done for jury trials.
    I can't speak for criminal cases but Employment Tribunals heard by a single judge are being held by he court system's Zoom equivalent. Tribunals that need a full panel of three people (mostly discrimination claims) are still live.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Curious provision in clause 56 which changes the Public Order Act. It provides:

    A person is guilty of an offence under subsection (4) or (5) only if—
    (a) in the case of a public procession in England and Wales, at the
    time the person fails to comply with the condition the person
    knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed;
    (b) in the case of a public procession in Scotland, the person
    knowingly fails to comply with the condition.”

    So in Scotland we will still have to prove actual knowledge of the conditions imposed upon the procession. In England and Wales it is enough that you ought to know.

    The idea of someone being guilty of a criminal offence because they "ought" to know is deeply unattractive. One only needs to think of the ever more Kafkaesque provisions brought in under the public health Acts in relation to Covid to see that "ought" is going to have to be looked at pretty carefully. It is one thing to say ignorance of the law is no excuse but ignorance of conditions given to someone else which may be lengthy and complex? Nah.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,781
    Hartlepool by-election - interesting to see if Tice wins it for Labour again
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What you are saying is that, if I remember correctly, Plato is essentially right, and it isn't possible to have a functioning democracy for very long, because the people don't put the work in and allow themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.

    This is a thoroughly depressing conclusion. It's too early for that, and I'm not about to start drinking yet.
    It certainly would be a catastrophe if people no longer allowed themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458
    You couldn't pick many more interesting seats to determine Lab/Tory progress
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    glw said:

    *duplicate*

    Part of the issue here is the switch in how crimes are recorded by Jack Straw 20 years or so ago. They switched iirc to calling multiple offences on one occasion, and multiple offences by one offender against one victim as multiple crimes in the stats.

    There is also the very dodgy stuff about "hate incidents" (ie not offences) where "recording" was pioneered by the loopy Constabulary of Nottinghamshire a few years ago. The former Chief has been all over TV as a talking head for the last few days. Doubt whether these make the Crime Survey.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,584
    It's an election which all parties need to go for. No soft pedals. A must win for Starmer I'm sure, if he loses, then the knives will be out.

    (I expect a labour hold).
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458

    It's an election which all parties need to go for. No soft pedals. A must win for Starmer I'm sure, if he loses, then the knives will be out.

    (I expect a labour hold).
    If the Tories use Ben Houchen bigly on the campaign trail they've got a huge chance.

    Labour should pick Peter Mandelson as their candidate for the lols
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.

    Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.

    Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.

    What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.

    Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
    It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
    True, more legal aid defence lawyers just isn't as catchy but will be essential if we are going to use weekend and evening courts to sort out the backlog.
    Zoom seems a popular way to conduct various court proceedings in the USA. Has it been used here at all ?
    I assume it can't be done for jury trials.
    Our courts use webex for jury trials. The jury sit socially distanced in a large building such as a cinema and watch the evidence in court on screens. They then have a group screen session to make a decision at the end.

    So far these provisions have been used for simpler trials involving 1 accused and a limited number of witnesses. There is huge pressure to agree evidence on both sides but to me this is completely unfair on the Jury who are not lawyers and cannot be expected to take all the nuances of a joint minute setting out agreed facts.

    Anecdotal evidence is that acquittals are much higher with a lot of not proven verdicts. My opinion is that this is in part because people are used to seeing things on screens that are not true, the agreement of evidence makes it less "real" or visceral for the lay jury and they are just more remote from the proceedings psychologically as well as physically.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 6,424
    Roger said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    From @noneoftheabove on one of the previous threads:-

    "Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"

    I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.

    Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.

    But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.

    As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.

    Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
    What you are saying is that, if I remember correctly, Plato is essentially right, and it isn't possible to have a functioning democracy for very long, because the people don't put the work in and allow themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.

    This is a thoroughly depressing conclusion. It's too early for that, and I'm not about to start drinking yet.
    It certainly would be a catastrophe if people no longer allowed themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
    Indeed, how would populist politicians convince the gullible that they had taken back control?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.

    The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.

    If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.

    I wasn't going to do this because it really ought to be up to the person making the claim to cite their source.

    However, I have found this table:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/thenatureofviolentcrimeappendixtables

    And Table 1 shows that in the year to March 2020:

    2.0% of males were victims of violent crime (1.0% with injury)
    1.3% of females were victimes of violent crime (0.6% with injury)

    Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales

    However, Table 9 shows the male/female split for police recorded crime (41 forces):

    All violence: 44/56
    Homicide: 73/27
    Violence with injury: 51/49
    Without injury: 40/60
    Sexual offences: 16/84
    Rape: 10/90
    Other sexual offences: 19/81

    Home Office - Police recorded crime and Homicide Index
    1. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. In accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, figures from the Homicide Index have been re-assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics.


    So, you pays your money, you takes you takes your choice.
  • DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 81
    MattW said:

    Off topic: Has anyone been watching the America's Cup.

    This is the first time I have really followed it for some time - via Youtube. Watching a couple of match-racing boats whizzing around Auckland at 60mph is diverting.

    But the traditional problem - who to support now that we have been knocked out?

    MattW said:

    Off topic: Has anyone been watching the America's Cup.

    This is the first time I have really followed it for some time - via Youtube. Watching a couple of match-racing boats whizzing around Auckland at 60mph is diverting.

    But the traditional problem - who to support now that we have been knocked out?

    Blimey. It's nearly over! But I would much rather see the Kiwis win than the Italians because although the Italians beat the Brits fair and square, there was a fair amount of gamesmanship going on.
Sign In or Register to comment.