That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
Well, switch it around - if a person says they didn't rape someone (as they usually do say), is the other person's opinion of what occurred relevant? Yes, as the jury may believe the other person is telling the truth.
People will deny the claim of an accuser, obviously, and whilst we all want more convictions as it seems unlikely the only guilty people are the ones who got convicted, it's not like a jury can automatically believe one side over the other or regard the defence as irrelevant. The defence might be absurd or outrageous, but that's not the same thing.
If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.
Would you support the tories playing the Rotherham card?
Abso-fucking-lutely. I have different views to you on certain things, but going soft on unscrupulous lefties is not one of them.
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
For Labour, given where they have gone to, that is a result.
That was also the issue facing Hague’s Tories. Remember how pleased they were to hold Uxbridge, which at one time was thought to be a possible by-election gain for Labour. Or to get a small uplift in the vote at Eddisbury.
I agree it *shouldn’t* be an issue after 11 years in opposition. But they are where they are.
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
For Labour, given where they have gone to, that is a result.
That was also the issue facing Hague’s Tories. Remember how pleased they were to hold Uxbridge, which at one time was thought to be a possible by-election gain for Labour. Or to get a small uplift in the vote at Eddisbury.
I agree it *shouldn’t* be an issue after 11 years in opposition. But they are where they are.
Except that - unlike at the time of the Uxbridge by election in July 1997 - the national polls are not currently indicating a pro-Tory swing relative to 2019 despite the vaccine bounce.
Huh? In July 1997 the opinion polls showed Labour 57 Tory 23 Lib Dem 15.
That compares to the election result of lab 43 Con 30.
That does not look like a pro-Tory swing to me... unless we’re back to ‘Blair’s a Tory.’
Sorry I messed up my comments there! You are quite correct. I meant to say that at the time of the Uxbridge election the polls were showing a substantial pro-Government swing - though that failed to materialise at the by - election. The polls - though pretty good for the Government - are not currently showing that.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.
Would you support the tories playing the Rotherham card?
A card that goes back several years. Some of us were discussing at the weekend Anne Cryer raising the goings on in Keighley Many years ago and being attacked and even labelled a racist for doing so. Her own party attacked her for raising it as did columns in left,leaning papers.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
I don’t know why Labour tweeted that considering there has been issue with low conviction rates for rape for a very long time now. Certainly I don’t remember things being much different when Labour were in power, but I am happy to be corrected.
I am sure it was much better when SKS was DPP. Bound to have been, wasn't it?
Isn't it the case that an overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near court either because of a complete lack of evidence, or because the complaint chooses to drop the complaint? There's not much that can be done about that.
Yes. They are, to use the parlance, "no crimed". There is no corroborating evidence or the complainant is either reluctant, or withdraws. The police/CPS then have no choice.
It is very hard to convict a man when it is simply her word against his, and there are absolutely no witnesses, and absolutely no corroboration (eg marks on her body implying force).
The law is then stuck. If the case does not proceed then a major injustice might be done to a truthful woman who lacks any other evidence. But if it proceeds, can you really convict a man and send him to prison for 5-7 years, and possibly ruin his life, when there is zero evidence other than a mere accusation? Then you're back to the Witchcraft Act of James II: allegation means guilt
I'm not sure how you solve it. Many legislatures have tried, and failed
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
I don’t know why Labour tweeted that considering there has been issue with low conviction rates for rape for a very long time now. Certainly I don’t remember things being much different when Labour were in power, but I am happy to be corrected.
I am sure it was much better when SKS was DPP. Bound to have been, wasn't it?
Isn't it the case that an overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near court either because of a complete lack of evidence, or because the complaint chooses to drop the complaint? There's not much that can be done about that.
Yes. They are, to use the parlance, "no crimed". There is no corroborating evidence or the complainant is either reluctant, or withdraws. The police/CPS then have no choice.
It is very hard to convict a man when it is simply her word against his, and there are absolutely no witnesses, and absolutely no corroboration (eg marks on her body implying force).
The law is then stuck. If the case does not proceed then a major injustice might be done to a truthful woman who lacks any other evidence. But if it proceeds, can you really convict a man and send him to prison for 5-7 years, and possibly ruin his life, when there is zero evidence other than a mere accusation? Then you're back to the Witchcraft Act of James II: allegation means guilt
I'm not sure how you solve it. Many legislatures have tried, and failed
There used to be a PBer, I think his name was SeanT, who said he was on remand for rape, but had the charges against him dropped.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
Because no one ever lies, or changes their mind, or gets drunk and fancies a guy but in the morning thinks they have made a mistake.
Or is unfaithful and then risks losing a boyfriend/husband, so fabricates a rape. That is far from unknown
I don’t know why Labour tweeted that considering there has been issue with low conviction rates for rape for a very long time now. Certainly I don’t remember things being much different when Labour were in power, but I am happy to be corrected.
I am sure it was much better when SKS was DPP. Bound to have been, wasn't it?
Isn't it the case that an overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near court either because of a complete lack of evidence, or because the complaint chooses to drop the complaint? There's not much that can be done about that.
Yes. They are, to use the parlance, "no crimed". There is no corroborating evidence or the complainant is either reluctant, or withdraws. The police/CPS then have no choice.
It is very hard to convict a man when it is simply her word against his, and there are absolutely no witnesses, and absolutely no corroboration (eg marks on her body implying force).
The law is then stuck. If the case does not proceed then a major injustice might be done to a truthful woman who lacks any other evidence. But if it proceeds, can you really convict a man and send him to prison for 5-7 years, and possibly ruin his life, when there is zero evidence other than a mere accusation? Then you're back to the Witchcraft Act of James II: allegation means guilt
I'm not sure how you solve it. Many legislatures have tried, and failed
Precisely,
Rape is a heinous crime and should be punished severely however maybe I am the only one who has woken up in the morning with a women and we have spent time chatting before admitting we have no idea who the other person is on either side.
Covid restrictions will surely ensure that the by election campaigning is pretty low key. 'Throwing the kitchen sink at it' is not going to be an option. The normal flooding of the seat with campaign workers will be missing. Much more difficult to generate momentum via a typical LD type campaign.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
Err - because the person may not be being truthful. This is not difficult.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
Covid restrictions will surely ensure that the by election campaigning is pretty low key. 'Throwing the kitchen sink at it' is not going to be an option. The normal flooding of the seat with campaign workers will be missing. Much more difficult to generate momentum via a typical LD type campaign.
Good point well made. I’d not considered that when I posted earlier.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
Yes.
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.
Are you ignoring the whopper released by the Conservatives tonight, and highlighted by TSE, for any particular reason?
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
Ah then you didnt understand what I said under law currently
A drunk woman cant consent A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.
If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.
Are you ignoring the whopper released by the Conservatives tonight, and highlighted by TSE, for any particular reason?
Yes. You said, and I quote, 'the Labour one is significantly more offensive'. You were right.
So I thought it sensible to follow your lead on this occasion.
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.
But no ultimate triumph under Starmer...
Let's see how the economy works out over the next few years.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
Yes.
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
Yes it was loaded against women and that was wrong, however its always going to be a hard crime to prosecute in most cases because most are people being dragged off the streets and forced.
Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.
For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
Ah then you didnt understand what I said under law currently
A drunk woman cant consent A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk
It is also oddly infantilising of women, in a quite Victorian way.
It says, women are pathetic childish beings who get drunk and then can't be held responsible for what they do, the poor lambs, whereas men are bigger and stronger and even after nine pints of vodka are the superior intellect that should be in command of things, and able to recognise consent or its absence.
I am always surprised when ardent feminists advance this argument. I personally believe if we allow it, as we have, we should repeal the law on female suffrage, as women are clearly not big or wise enough to use the vote properly, and most of them are probably drunk when they hit the ballot box, the boozy sluts.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
Ah then you didnt understand what I said under law currently
A drunk woman cant consent A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk
I think we're going in circles - I'm not sure we're saying different things. We agree on what the law is. I was just saying that regardless of what the law is as written, if a jury decides to acquit anyway, then they can acquit.
As i mentioned i was on a rape jury. The alleged victim was questioned on the stand. The defence barrister insinuated that she had been drinking and that this affected the accuracy of her recall of the events of the night. The alleged victim was adamant that she had not been drinking and was fully aware of what was going on. As the law stands, by doing so (unconvincingly) i guess she undermined her case.
Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.
Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?
If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.
Are you ignoring the whopper released by the Conservatives tonight, and highlighted by TSE, for any particular reason?
Yes. You said, and I quote, 'the Labour one is significantly more offensive'. You were right.
So I thought it sensible to follow your lead on this occasion.
Both were rather tasteless. I would prefer the Labour Party not to indulge in such vile assertions.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you
No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
Ah then you didnt understand what I said under law currently
A drunk woman cant consent A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk
I think we're going in circles - I'm not sure we're saying different things. We agree on what the law is. I was just saying that regardless of what the law is as written, if a jury decides to acquit anyway, then they can acquit.
As i mentioned i was on a rape jury. The alleged victim was questioned on the stand. The defence barrister insinuated that she had been drinking and that this affected the accuracy of her recall of the events of the night. The alleged victim was adamant that she had not been drinking and was fully aware of what was going on. As the law stands, by doing so (unconvincingly) i guess she undermined her case.
I dont think what most of us are saying is contradictory to be honest. I think interpersonal stuff is complex. I think rape has connotations of grabbing a random women off the street but most rape isnt like that its more graduated. It goes from the sleeping with a woman who is drunk through starting to have sex with the woman you went to bed with last night though she isnt fully awake to the forceful.
For example under swedish rape laws I am guilty of multiple rapes of my ex. I woke up was horny she was asleep so would wake her up with a gentle tongue.....she hasnt given consent so thats rape
Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.
Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?
What would be brilliant is if the Scotland Act is amended at Westminster, to give the Scottish Parliament MORE powers to hold the executive to account, the SNP voting against. That would be a really clarifying moment (though I think they'd be sensible enough to realise voting 'for' would be the only way).
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
The law is to convict you have to have "beyond reasonable doubt". That is difficult when you have cases that many juries consider borderline such as two people getting drunk and / or someone expressing remorse. The CPS doesn't pull these cases because they are anti-women, it's because they know the chances of conviction are low and even lower when an appeal is taking into account. That is the reason conviction rates are so low, together with very few cases nowadays of random men attacking strangers given the chances of getting caught have massively increased due to DNA testing.
Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.
Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?
What would be brilliant is if the Scotland Act is amended at Westminster, to give the Scottish Parliament MORE powers to hold the executive to account, the SNP voting against. That would be a really clarifying moment (though I think they'd be sensible enough to realise voting 'for' would be the only way).
I think amending the act to give MSPs parliamentary privilege is absolutely necessary. There is no case for them and other devolved representatives to not have it.
It is reported that the Salmond Enquiry committee have not followed through on their notice requiring Salmond's solicitors to give them all the evidence withheld by ScotGov and the Crown Office.
Just to remind everyone that Hartlepool ( or rather The Hartlepools) did elect a Conservative MP. He was Commander Kerans who was the captain of HMS Amethyst involved in a dramatic escape from the Yangtze as the communists were taking power in China. It was portrayed in the film The Yangtze Incident in 1957 with Richard Todd as Kerans. The film employed a whole series of British character actors including William Hartnell, Donald Houston, Robert Urquhart, Sam Kydd, Ewen Solon, Kenneth Cope, Ian Bannen, Bernard Cribbins, Basil Dignam, Cyril Luckham, and directed by Michael Anderson.
It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...
☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.
Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?
First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.
Re: Hartlepool, only time I was ever there was during the 2000 general election, when I was cruising around Britain, and pulled into Hp with the vague notion of finding Peter Mandleson, his campaign HQ or both. After about a half hour driving around, without success (but also not much effort) got back on the road north.
County Durham strikes me as pretty similar to Western Pennsylvania, geographically, economically, even (to an extent) culturally and politically. Both are famous for coal mines, hills and a very chilly riviera; North Sea for CD, Lake Erie for PA. And with Harlepool a port somewhat akin to the city of Erie, PA (aka "dreary Erie on the Lake").
I always had him down for a tin tin impersonator with that hair style I always look out for snowy and captain haddock
Wood wood more like with that bad acting!
well if you want bad acting and talk about wood wood you want my ex mother....most have fairies living at the bottom of their garden mine had edward woodward and michelle dotrice
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.
Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?
What would be brilliant is if the Scotland Act is amended at Westminster, to give the Scottish Parliament MORE powers to hold the executive to account, the SNP voting against. That would be a really clarifying moment (though I think they'd be sensible enough to realise voting 'for' would be the only way).
I think amending the act to give MSPs parliamentary privilege is absolutely necessary. There is no case for them and other devolved representatives to not have it.
Agree 100%. It would just be funny if Parliament were to have a vote on giving the SP more powers, and the SNP were to vote against it.
I don't actually think they would vote against it mind - there would be little point in trashing their reputation in order to attempt unsuccessfully to block it.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
A lot of them won't go Conservative though. This is what Farage knew. A lot of old Labour just can't bring themselves to vote Tory... Without BXP most of their voters will stay at home.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
But there is no same basis for doing such a thing. There just isn't.
The perception is the Party led by Johnson isn't a distant, elitist cabal of overindulged Southern, public schoolboys. After all Johnson goes out to work in a hi-viz jacket or a lab coat like the rest of us grafters. Johnson and his compatriots have the interests of hard working blue collar staff in their hearts. For goodness sake they have spent the last year feeding our bank accounts with free money. This isn't the Tory Party of Home or Heath, or even Cameron and Osborne for that matter. It is the party of "Boris", infact are they even called Conservatives anymore?
The perception of the Labour Party at present, is that of Southern public school elitists who have never done a day's work in their lives. They are only interested in taking the knee, supporting foreigners, Rochdale cabbies, and people who pull down statues of patriotic heroes.
For this perception to change, economic hardship will need to bite, and when it does, Dido Harding and PPE procurement scandals will become important to people struggling to pay their mortgage. If it doesn't Boris can happily celebrate a 25 year premiership.
That's exactly my take too. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour retain this seat. The Cons are clear favourites for me. Might put quite a wedge on.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
Yes.
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
Yes it was loaded against women and that was wrong, however its always going to be a hard crime to prosecute in most cases because most are people being dragged off the streets and forced.
Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.
For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent
I'm sure there are other sites more suitable for you to share your fantasies on.
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
Yes, Davis has clearly threatened the committee with parliamentary privilege in Westminster to expose their blatant politicking on evidence gathering and politically convenient redactions. I assume once something has been made public in the House of Commons the committee in Holyrood can use that as evidence as the same parliamentary privilege then protects others when they repeat it publicly.
Still the way out of this is to amend the act and give MSPs the same parliamentary privilege, separate out the DPP from politics and make the Scottish civil service much more independent of the government as they are in Whitehall.
A lot of self confessed betting shrewdies on here.. who wants to make a price on whether Sir Keir does better or worse in terms of Vote share at his GE than Ed Miliband? And another set of prices on whether he does better or worse in terms of seats
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I really very much doubt that a Tory gain will happen. Why should that be more likely now than in December 2019? No national poll since last April would imply it. Labour is now polling circa 37 % compared with 33% at the GE. That should take Labour to 45% pus in the seat - assuming a sharp fall in Brexit Party support.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
Yes.
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
Yes it was loaded against women and that was wrong, however its always going to be a hard crime to prosecute in most cases because most are people being dragged off the streets and forced.
Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.
For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent
I'm sure there are other sites more suitable for you to share your fantasies on.
It was merely an example, if it got you to het up I am sure you have a loo to masturbate in
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
A lot of them won't go Conservative though. This is what Farage knew. A lot of old Labour just can't bring themselves to vote Tory... Without BXP most of their voters will stay at home.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
But there is no same basis for doing such a thing. There just isn't.
The perception is the Party led by Johnson isn't a distant, elitist cabal of overindulged Southern, public schoolboys. After all Johnson goes out to work in a hi-viz jacket or a lab coat like the rest of us grafters. Johnson and his compatriots have the interests of hard working blue collar staff in their hearts. For goodness sake they have spent the last year feeding our bank accounts with free money. This isn't the Tory Party of Home or Heath, or even Cameron and Osborne for that matter. It is the party of "Boris", infact are they even called Conservatives anymore?
The perception of the Labour Party at present, is that of Southern public school elitists who have never done a day's work in their lives. They are only interested in taking the knee, supporting foreigners, Rochdale cabbies, and people who pull down statues of patriotic heroes.
For this perception to change, economic hardship will need to bite, and when it does, Dido Harding and PPE procurement scandals will become important to people struggling to pay their mortgage. If it doesn't Boris can happily celebrate a 25 year premiership.
That's exactly my take too. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour retain this seat. The Cons are clear favourites for me. Might put quite a wedge on.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
A lot of them won't go Conservative though. This is what Farage knew. A lot of old Labour just can't bring themselves to vote Tory... Without BXP most of their voters will stay at home.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
But there is no same basis for doing such a thing. There just isn't.
The perception is the Party led by Johnson isn't a distant, elitist cabal of overindulged Southern, public schoolboys. After all Johnson goes out to work in a hi-viz jacket or a lab coat like the rest of us grafters. Johnson and his compatriots have the interests of hard working blue collar staff in their hearts. For goodness sake they have spent the last year feeding our bank accounts with free money. This isn't the Tory Party of Home or Heath, or even Cameron and Osborne for that matter. It is the party of "Boris", infact are they even called Conservatives anymore?
The perception of the Labour Party at present, is that of Southern public school elitists who have never done a day's work in their lives. They are only interested in taking the knee, supporting foreigners, Rochdale cabbies, and people who pull down statues of patriotic heroes.
For this perception to change, economic hardship will need to bite, and when it does, Dido Harding and PPE procurement scandals will become important to people struggling to pay their mortgage. If it doesn't Boris can happily celebrate a 25 year premiership.
That's exactly my take too. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour retain this seat. The Cons are clear favourites for me. Might put quite a wedge on.
I don't expect a repeat of Copeland February 2017.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
A lot of them won't go Conservative though. This is what Farage knew. A lot of old Labour just can't bring themselves to vote Tory... Without BXP most of their voters will stay at home.
Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.
But there is no same basis for doing such a thing. There just isn't.
The perception is the Party led by Johnson isn't a distant, elitist cabal of overindulged Southern, public schoolboys. After all Johnson goes out to work in a hi-viz jacket or a lab coat like the rest of us grafters. Johnson and his compatriots have the interests of hard working blue collar staff in their hearts. For goodness sake they have spent the last year feeding our bank accounts with free money. This isn't the Tory Party of Home or Heath, or even Cameron and Osborne for that matter. It is the party of "Boris", infact are they even called Conservatives anymore?
The perception of the Labour Party at present, is that of Southern public school elitists who have never done a day's work in their lives. They are only interested in taking the knee, supporting foreigners, Rochdale cabbies, and people who pull down statues of patriotic heroes.
For this perception to change, economic hardship will need to bite, and when it does, Dido Harding and PPE procurement scandals will become important to people struggling to pay their mortgage. If it doesn't Boris can happily celebrate a 25 year premiership.
That's exactly my take too. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour retain this seat. The Cons are clear favourites for me. Might put quite a wedge on.
Kudos on expanding out the previous argument that because AV was rejected there is no need to revisit voting systems, by instead using it as proof there is a need to revisit voting systems, and that not only was it a vote in favour of FPTP, it was a vote against all transferable vote systems, even ones not on the ballot.
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
The Committee should of course be asking for that evidence, but they have been given cover not to do so by threats from the Crown office that it would be illegal.
I believe that Salmond's evidence from the trial is more extensive than what the whistleblower seems to have passed to Davis, but I am not sure.
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
Yes, Davis has clearly threatened the committee with parliamentary privilege in Westminster to expose their blatant politicking on evidence gathering and politically convenient redactions. I assume once something has been made public in the House of Commons the committee in Holyrood can use that as evidence as the same parliamentary privilege then protects others when they repeat it publicly.
Still the way out of this is to amend the act and give MSPs the same parliamentary privilege, separate out the DPP from politics and make the Scottish civil service much more independent of the government as they are in Whitehall.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I really very much doubt that a Tory gain will happen. Why should that be more likely now than in December 2019? No national poll since last April would imply it. Labour is now polling circa 37 % compared with 33% at the GE. That should take Labour to 45% pus in the seat - assuming a sharp fall in Brexit Party support.
Well there might be something in the suggestion BXP in its new form will not do as well, and a theory could be made that the Tories will do better as a result of that, but given that is not certain, and the polling is in general not as far apart as December 2019, Labour have reason to bullish, even if a loss cannot be ruled out.
Apparently the EU is now accusing national governments of stockpiling the vaccine. I think. Why? Why are they so keen to have a vaccine they are so reluctant to use or for anyone else to use? Most political cock-ups involve incompetence, some involve corruption. But there's normally some point to it. This involves - what? Who benefits? I genuinely don't understand what the Europeans are playing at.
I was once (until about 3 days ago) a reluctant Leaver.
No more.
I now feel like someone who has escaped a cult, who gets the last round of therapy, and sees the cult for what it is.
Thank God we are out. Even if it costs 10% of GDP, we now govern ourselves. These halfwits can damage us no more, we just have to deal with our own halfwits.
I always had him down for a tin tin impersonator with that hair style I always look out for snowy and captain haddock
Do NOT underestimate the power of powerful hair. And Starmer's hair is perhaps his most powerful PR asset, at least at present.
Look what it's done for Boris Johnson. And what lack thereof did to (just naming two) Hague and IDS.
Critics of above will cite Winston Churchill. Yet that was in a simpler, sterner age, before the rug & the plug.
Ramsey Macdonald had a magnificent head of hair, whileAnthony Eden's hair was part-and-parcel of his post-war appeal, Harold Wilson wielded his quiff in political battle, and Margaret Thacher's helmet of hair was emblematic of the Iron Maiden.
Whereas Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain's hair was never what one would call truly adequate. And years of austerity clearly took their toll on Clement Attlee's hair, as did the stress of Philby and Profumo upon Harold Macmillan's follicules. As for Sir Alec Douglas-Home, his head was notoriously skeletal, which no much can be said about the hair of Ted Heath or Jim Callaghan except that the had some (I think). Same goes for Michael Howard.
John Major was another story; his superior hair was a crucial, if rarely-cited reason for his 1992 election victory. And there is no doubt that Theresa May's rise to power was facilitated by a strong, stylish yet sensible, approachable but authoritative hairdo. However, her permanent proved less so in the hothouse of No. 10 and wilted along with her electoral & political prospects.
AND wasn't it someone on THIS thred, who pointed to the Samson-like strength derived by Boris Johnson from his wild, abundant, unruly, frequently downright-delinquent locks? AND the great dangers he now runs, due to his visibly-thinning crown?
I was once (until about 3 days ago) a reluctant Leaver.
No more.
I now feel like someone who has escaped a cult, who gets the last round of therapy, and sees the cult for what it is.
Thank God we are out. Even if it costs 10% of GDP, we now govern ourselves. These halfwits can damage us no more, we just have to deal with our own halfwits.
But we can throw them out at elections
But you can no longer protest about them as it is annoying.
I recall the very confident predictions on here in the aftermath of the May 2019 European Parliament elections that the Brexit Party was a 'shoo in' to win the Peterborough by election held just two weeks later. It did not happen - despite the Onasanya conviction.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
Because no one ever lies, or changes their mind, or gets drunk and fancies a guy but in the morning thinks they have made a mistake.
Or is unfaithful and then risks losing a boyfriend/husband, so fabricates a rape. That is far from unknown
But it's rare. The problem is mainly the other way. 90% of rapes are not reported. Of the ones that are 97% lead to no charge. And half of them are acquitted. Upshot - For every rape conviction there are approximately 1000 instances which are not punished. It IS effectively decriminalised.
Apparently the EU is now accusing national governments of stockpiling the vaccine. I think. Why? Why are they so keen to have a vaccine they are so reluctant to use or for anyone else to use? Most political cock-ups involve incompetence, some involve corruption. But there's normally some point to it. This involves - what? Who benefits? I genuinely don't understand what the Europeans are playing at.
A third wave or even fourth wave followed by inevitable implosion of eu debt crisis may well finish the project off the way they are going at it.
I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
I'm amused at your air of slight surprise that you went to a wedding in Hartlepool.
I haven't been to Hartlepool since the 90s. Back then, the marina had recently been redone and looked quite smart. I bought a pair of trousers. The town had the atmosphere that with a couple of decades of good luck it could possibly be quite pleasant. I get the impression the hoped-for run of luck didn't come though.
Apparently the EU is now accusing national governments of stockpiling the vaccine. I think. Why? Why are they so keen to have a vaccine they are so reluctant to use or for anyone else to use? Most political cock-ups involve incompetence, some involve corruption. But there's normally some point to it. This involves - what? Who benefits? I genuinely don't understand what the Europeans are playing at.
Yes, it is one of the few political calamities when it is so calamitous it is hard to see an obvious winner. Russia with Sputnik, maybe, or China. But that is quite tenuous. Pfizer? I guess. But they would have to be quite evil to stoke all this. Are they?
The fact is, humanity loses, and it is tragic. This is an excellent vaccine with minimal side effects, sold at not for profit. You can keep it in a damn fridge. It is highly likely that tens of thousands of men and women will now die, who would otherwise have lived via AZ, because of the imbecilic "suspensions" by European governments (and a couple of others) and because this will stoke global vaccine hesitancy.
I am faintly ashamed to be a European. I have genuinely never felt that before. The continent of the Enlightenment, the home of medicine and vaccination, has, for whatever reasons, been reduced to THIS
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
Because no one ever lies, or changes their mind, or gets drunk and fancies a guy but in the morning thinks they have made a mistake.
Or is unfaithful and then risks losing a boyfriend/husband, so fabricates a rape. That is far from unknown
But it's rare. The problem is mainly the other way. 90% of rapes are not reported. Of the ones that are 97% lead to no charge. And half of them are acquitted. Upshot - For every rape conviction there are approximately 1000 instances which are not punished. It IS effectively decriminalised.
ALLEGED instances. ALLEGED. This is the key. This is British justice. By all means alter the law so it is balanced between plaintiff and defendant, if you wish
But a man accused is an ALLEGED rapist, and until and unless he is convicted, he is innocent, and there is no crime
Looks like Labour is going a bit core vote for May, to be honest.
The Starmer excuse makers are trying to say the lady who they are quoting in the ‘Tories have decriminalised rape’ advert is a government appointed QC
Well she was appointed by a government, just not this one - Theresa May appointed her...if that’s fair game then all Corbyn appointments, mistakes, anti semitism etc can be attributed to Starmer’s ‘new management’
... and she is a QC... but was also a Labour MP for 9 years before losing an unloseable seat in 2010 then getting a cushy PCC number.
My wife tonight showed me her contraceptive pill notes and one of the listed severe side effects is actually thrombosis, having looked it up it's a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing severe thrombosis for the type of contraceptive pill she takes. Obviously she still takes it anyway, but she was pretty scathing over the double standards being applied to the vaccine which has no causal link proved yet Germany and other European countries have granted full licences for the pill which has a known causal link to blood clots.
I always had him down for a tin tin impersonator with that hair style I always look out for snowy and captain haddock
Do NOT underestimate the power of powerful hair. And Starmer's hair is perhaps his most powerful PR asset, at least at present.
Look what it's done for Boris Johnson. And what lack thereof did to (just naming two) Hague and IDS.
Critics of above will cite Winston Churchill. Yet that was in a simpler, sterner age, before the rug & the plug.
Ramsey Macdonald had a magnificent head of hair, whileAnthony Eden's hair was part-and-parcel of his post-war appeal, Harold Wilson wielded his quiff in political battle, and Margaret Thacher's helmet of hair was emblematic of the Iron Maiden.
Whereas Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain's hair was never what one would call truly adequate. And years of austerity clearly took their toll on Clement Attlee's hair, as did the stress of Philby and Profumo upon Harold Macmillan's follicules. As for Sir Alec Douglas-Home, his head was notoriously skeletal, which no much can be said about the hair of Ted Heath or Jim Callaghan except that the had some (I think). Same goes for Michael Howard.
John Major was another story; his superior hair was a crucial, if rarely-cited reason for his 1992 election victory. And there is no doubt that Theresa May's rise to power was facilitated by a strong, stylish yet sensible, approachable but authoritative hairdo. However, her permanent proved less so in the hothouse of No. 10 and wilted along with her electoral & political prospects.
AND wasn't it someone on THIS thred, who pointed to the Samson-like strength derived by Boris Johnson from his wild, abundant, unruly, frequently downright-delinquent locks? AND the great dangers he now runs, due to his visibly-thinning crown?
I don't know if this is tongue in cheek or not. But I agree with it wholeheartedly.
That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.
It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).
The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.
I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.
? Because they might be lying?
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent
Yes.
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
One problem (there are others) with anonymity for the accused is this: Suppose the accused is acquitted of rape, so therefore could not be named, but is found guilty of a lesser offence still bearing a custodial sentence. The accused would then be effectively "disappeared".
I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.
If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
David Davis is one of those people in politics, who most of the time comes across (to me anyway) as about 98% nuts. BUT then every once in a while (but pretty regularly) does something like this, that is (at least as I see it) a true public service.
Kinda like a snow shovel in Seattle. Most of the time it's a nuisance underfoot. Except once in a blue moon, when it's snowing like hell.
My wife tonight showed me her contraceptive pill notes and one of the listed severe side effects is actually thrombosis, having looked it up it's a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing severe thrombosis for the type of contraceptive pill she takes. Obviously she still takes it anyway, but she was pretty scathing over the double standards being applied to the vaccine which has no causal link proved yet Germany and other European countries have granted full licences for the pill which has a known causal link to blood clots.
I believe it is closer to 1 in a 1000. Either way, it is a pretty crushing argument against the insanity prevailing in Paris, Rome and Berlin. AZ is safer than the Pill. No one talks of banning the Pill, yet they ban life saving vaccines in a pandemic. How have democratic governments come to this, in the face of global death on an enormous scale?
The British government made horrific mistakes early on. They are, perhaps, partly excusable from naivety in the face of a novel virus. Still terrible.
THIS is not excusable. There is no justification. Zero. If Boris ever does something this bad he should be sent to live just southwest of Glasgow , in an ex mining town, for the rest of his living days.
Comments
People will deny the claim of an accuser, obviously, and whilst we all want more convictions as it seems unlikely the only guilty people are the ones who got convicted, it's not like a jury can automatically believe one side over the other or regard the defence as irrelevant. The defence might be absurd or outrageous, but that's not the same thing.
One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.
It is very hard to convict a man when it is simply her word against his, and there are absolutely no witnesses, and absolutely no corroboration (eg marks on her body implying force).
The law is then stuck. If the case does not proceed then a major injustice might be done to a truthful woman who lacks any other evidence. But if it proceeds, can you really convict a man and send him to prison for 5-7 years, and possibly ruin his life, when there is zero evidence other than a mere accusation? Then you're back to the Witchcraft Act of James II: allegation means guilt
I'm not sure how you solve it. Many legislatures have tried, and failed
The big issue is that workers are "employed" by uber which means there is a very large VAT case that is going to go against Uber.
Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.
Rape is a heinous crime and should be punished severely however maybe I am the only one who has woken up in the morning with a women and we have spent time chatting before admitting we have no idea who the other person is on either side.
Is that rape or merely colllateral drunkeness?
It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.
Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?
That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)
Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.
Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.
This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way
The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.
A drunk woman cant consent
A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/21/is-it-bye-bye-to-by-elections/
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/27/bye-bye-by-elections-part-2-mps-who-resigned-their-seats-and-stood-in-the-ensuing-by-election/
So I thought it sensible to follow your lead on this occasion.
Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.
For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent
It says, women are pathetic childish beings who get drunk and then can't be held responsible for what they do, the poor lambs, whereas men are bigger and stronger and even after nine pints of vodka are the superior intellect that should be in command of things, and able to recognise consent or its absence.
I am always surprised when ardent feminists advance this argument. I personally believe if we allow it, as we have, we should repeal the law on female suffrage, as women are clearly not big or wise enough to use the vote properly, and most of them are probably drunk when they hit the ballot box, the boozy sluts.
As i mentioned i was on a rape jury. The alleged victim was questioned on the stand. The defence barrister insinuated that she had been drinking and that this affected the accuracy of her recall of the events of the night. The alleged victim was adamant that she had not been drinking and was fully aware of what was going on. As the law stands, by doing so (unconvincingly) i guess she undermined her case.
Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?
For example under swedish rape laws I am guilty of multiple rapes of my ex. I woke up was horny she was asleep so would wake her up with a gentle tongue.....she hasnt given consent so thats rape
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1371920028682043392?s=21
So no, they won't be seeing it all.
(via Wings, so attach what cautions you choose.)
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371906306387415040?s=21
County Durham strikes me as pretty similar to Western Pennsylvania, geographically, economically, even (to an extent) culturally and politically. Both are famous for coal mines, hills and a very chilly riviera; North Sea for CD, Lake Erie for PA. And with Harlepool a port somewhat akin to the city of Erie, PA (aka "dreary Erie on the Lake").
Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.
I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.
I don't actually think they would vote against it mind - there would be little point in trashing their reputation in order to attempt unsuccessfully to block it.
Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.
Still the way out of this is to amend the act and give MSPs the same parliamentary privilege, separate out the DPP from politics and make the Scottish civil service much more independent of the government as they are in Whitehall.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1371916576409198595
Kudos on expanding out the previous argument that because AV was rejected there is no need to revisit voting systems, by instead using it as proof there is a need to revisit voting systems, and that not only was it a vote in favour of FPTP, it was a vote against all transferable vote systems, even ones not on the ballot.
I believe that Salmond's evidence from the trial is more extensive than what the whistleblower seems to have passed to Davis, but I am not sure.
Why? Why are they so keen to have a vaccine they are so reluctant to use or for anyone else to use? Most political cock-ups involve incompetence, some involve corruption. But there's normally some point to it. This involves - what? Who benefits? I genuinely don't understand what the Europeans are playing at.
No more.
I now feel like someone who has escaped a cult, who gets the last round of therapy, and sees the cult for what it is.
Thank God we are out. Even if it costs 10% of GDP, we now govern ourselves. These halfwits can damage us no more, we just have to deal with our own halfwits.
But we can throw them out at elections
Look what it's done for Boris Johnson. And what lack thereof did to (just naming two) Hague and IDS.
Critics of above will cite Winston Churchill. Yet that was in a simpler, sterner age, before the rug & the plug.
Ramsey Macdonald had a magnificent head of hair, whileAnthony Eden's hair was part-and-parcel of his post-war appeal, Harold Wilson wielded his quiff in political battle, and Margaret Thacher's helmet of hair was emblematic of the Iron Maiden.
Whereas Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain's hair was never what one would call truly adequate. And years of austerity clearly took their toll on Clement Attlee's hair, as did the stress of Philby and Profumo upon Harold Macmillan's follicules. As for Sir Alec Douglas-Home, his head was notoriously skeletal, which no much can be said about the hair of Ted Heath or Jim Callaghan except that the had some (I think). Same goes for Michael Howard.
John Major was another story; his superior hair was a crucial, if rarely-cited reason for his 1992 election victory. And there is no doubt that Theresa May's rise to power was facilitated by a strong, stylish yet sensible, approachable but authoritative hairdo. However, her permanent proved less so in the hothouse of No. 10 and wilted along with her electoral & political prospects.
AND wasn't it someone on THIS thred, who pointed to the Samson-like strength derived by Boris Johnson from his wild, abundant, unruly, frequently downright-delinquent locks? AND the great dangers he now runs, due to his visibly-thinning crown?
I haven't been to Hartlepool since the 90s. Back then, the marina had recently been redone and looked quite smart. I bought a pair of trousers. The town had the atmosphere that with a couple of decades of good luck it could possibly be quite pleasant. I get the impression the hoped-for run of luck didn't come though.
Just a feeling. Only for price of a round.
The fact is, humanity loses, and it is tragic. This is an excellent vaccine with minimal side effects, sold at not for profit. You can keep it in a damn fridge. It is highly likely that tens of thousands of men and women will now die, who would otherwise have lived via AZ, because of the imbecilic "suspensions" by European governments (and a couple of others) and because this will stoke global vaccine hesitancy.
I am faintly ashamed to be a European. I have genuinely never felt that before. The continent of the Enlightenment, the home of medicine and vaccination, has, for whatever reasons, been reduced to THIS
Actually, he doesn't look half bad in the pic, not for a gent of his degree of superannuation, after four weeks w/ Nurse Wratchet.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371948210160287767?s=20
But a man accused is an ALLEGED rapist, and until and unless he is convicted, he is innocent, and there is no crime
Well she was appointed by a government, just not this one - Theresa May appointed her...if that’s fair game then all Corbyn appointments, mistakes, anti semitism etc can be attributed to Starmer’s ‘new management’
... and she is a QC... but was also a Labour MP for 9 years before losing an unloseable seat in 2010 then getting a cushy PCC number.
Suppose the accused is acquitted of rape, so therefore could not be named,
but is found guilty of a lesser offence still bearing a custodial sentence.
The accused would then be effectively "disappeared".
Kinda like a snow shovel in Seattle. Most of the time it's a nuisance underfoot. Except once in a blue moon, when it's snowing like hell.
The British government made horrific mistakes early on. They are, perhaps, partly excusable from naivety in the face of a novel virus. Still terrible.
THIS is not excusable. There is no justification. Zero. If Boris ever does something this bad he should be sent to live just southwest of Glasgow , in an ex mining town, for the rest of his living days.