Abbot, Jasper, Lammy and the rest are of course quite at liberty to question the Jury's verdict as much as they like (and there are aspects of it that do appear odd), but I wonder if it is wholly responsible to be doing so immediately after the verdict, when feelings are running high.
Picking up on this requirement to show ID when voting in person, how on earth are postal votes going to be subject to the same level of scrutiny. Why discriminate against those who have actually taken the time to drag themselves off the couch. And given the Electoral Commission's desire to explore email and text voting....... Idiocy.
As for Sale East and Wythenshawe, that doesn't look like especially promising UKIP territory to me. Some of the LD vote will probably return to Lab and on a low turnout I could see something like:
Paul Nuttall far out-polled her in the recent MEP selection.
Well, I've not backed her yet, I think I may go for Paul Nuttall now.
He polled over twice as much as anyone else (besides Farage) in the all member MEP selection ballot (though it was one member ten votes rather than one member one vote).
Paul Nuttall far out-polled her in the recent MEP selection.
Well, I've not backed her yet, I think I may go for Paul Nuttall now.
He polled over twice as much as anyone else (besides Farage) in the all member MEP selection ballot (though it was one member ten votes rather than one member one vote).
#Duggan wasn't holding the gun, but having a gun doesn't give the police license to kill. The Royal Family often walk around carrying guns!
One assumes they hold certificates for legal firearms. Shooting grouse with a sawn off, or a dodgy pistol bought round the back of The Queens Head, would raise a few eyebrows.
Isn't she the dullard who spent the evening whining on Twitter whilst kettled by the Met?
Just reading today's Current Bun (found it on the train, honest guv). The main political story on page 2 is a report that the PM is thinking about raising the minimum wage by £1 an hour. Either @MaxPB has the ear of Tory strategists or else Tory strategists read this blog.
Bts I am a long time lurker and occasional poster who finds this site much more congenial now that "tim" has gone.
Can't people just let tim alone? He's not posting, big deal.
Tim is the opium of the PB Hodges, they just cannot let him go. He is probably pissing himself with all the posts the Hodges are posting about him. And to think, they used to laugh at the number of posts he did. Oh, the utter irony.
Yeah, but he still ran away crying, and has not returned, when I gave him a taste of his own medicine, didn't he?
Heh.
Heh?
You really have lost the plot.
You think anyone who posts on here or might want to will be comfortable with knowing their names and details of their wife and family and jobs could be maliciously published by some drunken or unstable poster? (both excuses you have used for your behaviour in the past)
It's not just about tim posh Sean.
It's what is and is not acceptable on a reputable site and since this has happened twice now and you are still boasting about it it's becoming pretty damn clear it would seem to be fine.
With reference to Chris Christie, I will permit myself a small degree of smugness for having laid him when he was flavour of the month a little while back.
There is no proposal to "make it illegal to annoy someone". It is worth looking at what Clause 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill actually says.
"1. Power to grant injunctions (1)A court may grant an injunction under this section against a person aged 10 or over (“the respondent”) if two conditions are met. (2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“anti-social behaviour”). (3)The second condition is that the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour."
In other words, it only becomes illegal if an injunction is given; and an injunction can only be given if it is proportionate to the situation. When I was concerned about it, I googled it and found that the opponents of the Clause are essentially a collection of single-issue moaners who are complaining that it's going to criminalise children playing, or religious street-preachers, or whatever.
My MP (who is almost as liberal as I am) explained to me (bold added by me):
"The police, local authorities and others will not act lightly in seeking an injunction. They and the courts must exercise such powers in a reasonable, fair and proportionate manner. The draft guidance for frontline professionals highlights that, in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities.
For instance, children simply playing in a park or outside or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction, and failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful."
Haven't read the CiF piece but David Lammy's "statement" was well crafted. Nothing to come back and haunt him, a lot of community "cohesion" while not really saying anything at all.
There is no proposal to "make it illegal to annoy someone". It is worth looking at what Clause 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill actually says.
"1. Power to grant injunctions (1)A court may grant an injunction under this section against a person aged 10 or over (“the respondent”) if two conditions are met. (2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“anti-social behaviour”). (3)The second condition is that the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour."
In other words, it only becomes illegal if an injunction is given; and an injunction can only be given if it is proportionate to the situation. When I was concerned about it, I googled it and found that the opponents of the Clause are essentially a collection of single-issue moaners who are complaining that it's going to criminalise children playing, or religious street-preachers, or whatever.
My MP (who is almost as liberal as I am) explained to me (bold added by me):
"The police, local authorities and others will not act lightly in seeking an injunction. They and the courts must exercise such powers in a reasonable, fair and proportionate manner. The draft guidance for frontline professionals highlights that, in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities.
For instance, children simply playing in a park or outside or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction, and failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful."
How about this for legal entertainment-
"One offence which was commonly used was that of "being found on the airport". No other proviso, just being there. Like the hundreds of passengers for instance! Very easy to prove and useful for getting rid of problem visitors like the persons on weekends who visited from around Surrey and Sussex just to have a drink in the bars and shop on the non-air side."
He hadn't been on 10 seconds before he said "Black and Asian Minority" then went mad when the police guy said he was playing the race card.
Jasper, Lammy and Abbott bring race into everything, whether its Gay marriage, the decision on the Pope, which school to send their kids to, how much mothers love their kids...
Then when a white person says something mildly, even accidentally, maybe even not, racist, its " I cant believe in this day and age that race plays any part in... " etc etc
"This report shows that academies are doing much better than local authority schools'' is the Govian quote.
Y'now I just wonder about Wales in 2015. I just wonder. Could the electorate there finally make the connection between catastrophic performance and Labour government?
With reference to Chris Christie, I will permit myself a small degree of smugness for having laid him when he was flavour of the month a little while back.
Haven't read the CiF piece but David Lammy's "statement" was well crafted. Nothing to come back and haunt him, a lot of community "cohesion" while not really saying anything at all.
In the previous thread, someone was talking about football and Poisson distribution of goals.
As it happens, when Eusebio died, it was reported that he had scored 733 goals in 745 matches, so I worked out the Poisson distribution and found that one would expect that there were 2 games in which he scored 5 goals, but probably none with 6 or more. A bit of googling found a few examples of matches in which Eusebio scored 4 goals, but I couldn't find any with 5.
Is there some sort of definitive list where it says what goals he scored? Did he ever score 5 in one match? The fly in the ointment is that I guess that in the real world, goals don't follow the Poisson distribution anyway.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
My mother-in-law is a 69 immigrant to the UK. She actually works, and has her own savings, so does need a state pension. However my brother-in-law (was born with a British passport in South Africa, so not sure if he's an immigrant or not; come to think of it, his accent is decidedly funny, so let's say 'yes'), did investigate how long before said M-I-L would have to wait before getting benefits. And the answer was 'she had to demonstrate roots in the community', and that typically took around five years. (M-I-L has a Portuguese passport, but is actually from South Africa.)
"Is there a right of appeal against the findings of an inquest jury?"
One of the grown-ups will be along shortly t give us chapter and verse, but I am not sure there is except on the grounds of misdirection or abuse of process by the coroner. Furthermore, I am not sure there should be. The Coroners court is an inquest not an adversarial court. If a jury's verdict is open to appeal on gorunds that they got it wrong why bother with it in the first place.
Oddly enough that used to be the position in the Criminal law until relatively recently. If the idea of a jury is for 12 ordinary people to decide on the evidence of the facts is held to be good enough why, unless there was evidence unlawfully withheld from them or the Judge directed them wrongly, should there be a right of appeal from their decision. If a panel of judges can do a better job, then let the case go before them to start with and save the time and costs. Denning had quite a lot to say on the point as I recall.
Mind you the whole system of appeals in law is, in my view, bizarre. If so many cases go to appeal after appeal up through the chain justice is not served only the lawyers. See "Uncommon Law" by J.P.Herbert for details.
When I was trying to slim down the 'appeals' process for our school governors' Staffing Cttee I suggested only three legitimate reasons for appeal:
- New and compelling evidence having become available that would have been likely to have affected the decision had it been known to the original panel. - Procedure not followed resulting in the significant possibility that the hearing was not fairly conducted. - That the decision was manifestly perverse given the evidence presented.
I think I may have cribbed one or more of those from some memory of legal proceedings but whatever the original sources, they still seem a reasonable set to apply to any appeals process.
I put 'appeals' in quotes in the first sentence as in reality any decision the member of staff didn't like would result in a full re-hearing, so it wasn't so much an appeal against a decision as starting again from scratch.
That dude in the satin suit, tie and shirt combo and Mohawk, who was interviewed by Sky News about the Duggan result, has tweeted that he was stopped and searched for 45 minutes, on his travels between interviews.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
But you could get Pension Credit immediately if you can pass the habitual residency test, eg you are coming to live with adult children who are already settled
If the law is not supposed to be used for behaviours, "that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities." Then it should say so in the relevant section and not in the guidence notes. Guidance can be amended at any time by an official law can only be amended by act of parliament.
If the current proposals are passed as they stand they carry within them the seeds of a totalitarian state.
There is no proposal to "make it illegal to annoy someone". It is worth looking at what Clause 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill actually says.
"1. Power to grant injunctions (1)A court may grant an injunction under this section against a person aged 10 or over (“the respondent”) if two conditions are met. (2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“anti-social behaviour”). (3)The second condition is that the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour."
In other words, it only becomes illegal if an injunction is given; and an injunction can only be given if it is proportionate to the situation. When I was concerned about it, I googled it and found that the opponents of the Clause are essentially a collection of single-issue moaners who are complaining that it's going to criminalise children playing, or religious street-preachers, or whatever.
My MP (who is almost as liberal as I am) explained to me (bold added by me):
"The police, local authorities and others will not act lightly in seeking an injunction. They and the courts must exercise such powers in a reasonable, fair and proportionate manner. The draft guidance for frontline professionals highlights that, in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities.
For instance, children simply playing in a park or outside or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction, and failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful."
this sounds like bad law to me. There is no real definition of anti-social behaviour other than it causes 2nuisance" or "annoyance" (maybe there are legal definitions of these). and one of the criteria for applying the law is "convenience". Nowhere does it actually say "proportionate". We depend on "professionals" excercising their judgment on what constitutes nuisance or annoyance. Great.
Can't we have old-fashioned law back where an Act of Parliament states what is illegal, and the court has to prove mens rea as well as actus reus?
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
But you could get Pension Credit immediately if you can pass the habitual residency test, eg you are coming to live with adult children who are already settled
In the previous thread, someone was talking about football and Poisson distribution of goals.
As it happens, when Eusebio died, it was reported that he had scored 733 goals in 745 matches, so I worked out the Poisson distribution and found that one would expect that there were 2 games in which he scored 5 goals, but probably none with 6 or more. A bit of googling found a few examples of matches in which Eusebio scored 4 goals, but I couldn't find any with 5.
Is there some sort of definitive list where it says what goals he scored? Did he ever score 5 in one match? The fly in the ointment is that I guess that in the real world, goals don't follow the Poisson distribution anyway.
I will have a look, but you are right I think in terms of individual goals scored, as when a player has got two I reckon he must be more likely to get another goal than had he not scored (would take pens, free kicks, everyone sets him up etc)
That dude in the satin suit, tie and shirt combo and Mohawk, who was interviewed by Sky News about the Duggan result, has tweeted that he was stopped and searched for 45 minutes, on his travels between interviews.
If that's true, that can only inflame things.
If untrue, I'd have thought it was equally inflammatory.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
But you could get Pension Credit immediately if you can pass the habitual residency test, eg you are coming to live with adult children who are already settled
That dude in the satin suit, tie and shirt combo and Mohawk, who was interviewed by Sky News about the Duggan result, has tweeted that he was stopped and searched for 45 minutes, on his travels between interviews.
If that's true, that can only inflame things.
If untrue, I'd have thought it was equally inflammatory.
Yes, although I can't see the police running riot over it.
When did inquest juries change from giving a "verdict" to giving "conclusions"? And when did it change to explicitly answering a list of questions, as well as the main verdict on the killing itself?
The answers given by the jury in the Duggan case seem to be at a very high level of wisdom and good sense.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
But you could get Pension Credit immediately if you can pass the habitual residency test, eg you are coming to live with adult children who are already settled
Yup - if you satisfy the other requirements.
the "other requirements" being?
Income / savings tests obviously as it is a means-tested benefit.
You cant get it if someone has signed a maintenance undertaking to support you while living in the UK. You cant get it if you were only allowed in on condition you didnt claim benefits.
Just in case nobody else has yet mentioned it, it should be stated for the record that Paul Goggins MP was the son of Mrs Goggins from the Postman Pat series.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
So there is a difference between Pensions and other welfare benefits as OGH says?
No. You could argue (if you wanted but I dont see the practical difference) that there is a difference between contributory and non-contributory benefits.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
So there is a difference between Pensions and other welfare benefits as OGH says?
Yes and no.
Jobseeker's allowance is contributory for 6 months, then you have to apply for it on a means tested basis.
ESA (Work Related Activity Group) is contributory for a year, and then you have to apply for it on a means-tested basis.
ESA (Support Group) is not contributory but if you wouldn't qualify for means tested benefits it is paid at the equivalent of the contributory rate. Capeesh?
Pensions are contributory, you need 35 years' full NI contributions.
BUT you can also apply for Pension Credit which is a non-contributory means-tested benefit, which is actually greater than the Pension rate. So if your only income is a pension, or you don't get a (full) pension, you can still get pension Credit without having paid in a bean. I think Gordon brown invented this one.
Academies were something that Gove inheritied from Labour.
Meanwhile the man who'll lose the Tories the election is trying to block freedom of information moves over free schools. If he was confident of his position he'd follow the FOI requests not try to evade them.
If it kicks-off tonight then this could well be Cammer's Falklands. I do hope the likes of Wodger charge full-force into my Turkish/Kurdish business-men/gendarme in East London (c.f. his threats in 2011).
In the previous thread, someone was talking about football and Poisson distribution of goals.
As it happens, when Eusebio died, it was reported that he had scored 733 goals in 745 matches, so I worked out the Poisson distribution and found that one would expect that there were 2 games in which he scored 5 goals, but probably none with 6 or more. A bit of googling found a few examples of matches in which Eusebio scored 4 goals, but I couldn't find any with 5.
Is there some sort of definitive list where it says what goals he scored? Did he ever score 5 in one match? The fly in the ointment is that I guess that in the real world, goals don't follow the Poisson distribution anyway.
I will have a look, but you are right I think in terms of individual goals scored, as when a player has got two I reckon he must be more likely to get another goal than had he not scored (would take pens, free kicks, everyone sets him up etc)
Conversely, once a player has three or more, there's an increased likelihood of them being substituted as a preservation measure, assuming the team's well ahead, which most times they would be. Obviously, that would have applied far less in Eusebio's day when there either weren't substitutes at all or were at most one per team.
On topic, how long would a 68 yr old immigrant arriving in the UK wait to get a state pension?
Presuming he or she doesnt work then forever - there is a contribution requirement for the basic state pension.
But you could get Pension Credit immediately if you can pass the habitual residency test, eg you are coming to live with adult children who are already settled
Yup - if you satisfy the other requirements.
the "other requirements" being?
Income / savings tests obviously as it is a means-tested benefit.
You cant get it if someone has signed a maintenance undertaking to support you while living in the UK. You cant get it if you were only allowed in on condition you didnt claim benefits.
So we have established that someone who comes to the UK and convinces some officials at the DWP that they will be "habitually resident" can claim a means tested benefit at a rate greater than the State Pension, immediately.
Would be interesting to know the proportion of elderly immigrants who have to have a maintenance undertaking or have No Recourse to Public Funds stamped in their passports.
A necessary measure to deal with appalling pensioner poverty in an affordable way. Everyone's trying to move away from means-testing now but it's almost impossible to get rid of (and the single-tier pension set about the pension credit level doesnt do it).
If it kicks-off tonight then this could well be Cammer's Falklands.
One thing that the police could do is produce more hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal.
He had convictions, but only minor stuff. The police made a lot of allegations about his behaviour at the inquest, I don't know how much it was substantiated by evidence.
Would be interesting to know the proportion of elderly immigrants who have to have a maintenance undertaking or have No Recourse to Public Funds stamped in their passports.
I have friends who cant get their parents in even with a maintenance undertaking!
Abbot, Jasper, Lammy and the rest are of course quite at liberty to question the Jury's verdict as much as they like (and there are aspects of it that do appear odd), but I wonder if it is wholly responsible to be doing so immediately after the verdict, when feelings are running high.
C4 News spent so long on the Duggan affair that it could be construed as incitement to riot.
In the previous thread, someone was talking about football and Poisson distribution of goals.
As it happens, when Eusebio died, it was reported that he had scored 733 goals in 745 matches, so I worked out the Poisson distribution and found that one would expect that there were 2 games in which he scored 5 goals, but probably none with 6 or more. A bit of googling found a few examples of matches in which Eusebio scored 4 goals, but I couldn't find any with 5.
Is there some sort of definitive list where it says what goals he scored? Did he ever score 5 in one match? The fly in the ointment is that I guess that in the real world, goals don't follow the Poisson distribution anyway.
I will have a look, but you are right I think in terms of individual goals scored, as when a player has got two I reckon he must be more likely to get another goal than had he not scored (would take pens, free kicks, everyone sets him up etc)
Conversely, once a player has three or more, there's an increased likelihood of them being substituted as a preservation measure, assuming the team's well ahead, which most times they would be. Obviously, that would have applied far less in Eusebio's day when there either weren't substitutes at all or were at most one per team.
Yes and some managers substitute such players so they get a personal standing ovation!
Talking of our fine men in blue anyone who hasn't yet read Simon Carr's latest piece on Guido is missing themselves.
How is this for a start:
"Something a bit fishy about the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe. It’s only a hunch based on years of snap and unsubstantiated judgements but I’d arrest him."
Academies were something that Gove inheritied from Labour.
Meanwhile the man who'll lose the Tories the election is trying to block freedom of information moves over free schools. If he was confident of his position he'd follow the FOI requests not try to evade them.
I agree with you about the FOI. In fact, I think the Government in general should have no right to withhold information from the people who paid for it (ie us), that they should freely make the information available even without FOI requests having to be made, and they should not seek FOI exemptions even when they could do so, except in exceptional cases.
But I can't believe Gove is any more culpable than any of our politicians, nor that a theoretical LibDem in the role of Secretary of State for Education would do any differently.
If it kicks-off tonight then this could well be Cammer's Falklands.
One thing that the police could do is produce more hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal.
He had convictions, but only minor stuff. The police made a lot of allegations about his behaviour at the inquest, I don't know how much it was substantiated by evidence.
You are an Argentinian (in South Georgia, 1982) scrap-dealer and I claim my war booty! Using 'legal-niceties' to defend wrongs/destruction/death should be left to the resident/rodent plastic-Dane.*
* Damien Green 'arrest' (Parliamentary intrusion by The-Armed-Wing-of-the-Labour-Party): Wonderful; Andrew Mitchell's abuse by said 'Armed-Wing': hilarious. Sven: A failure....
Would be interesting to know the proportion of elderly immigrants who have to have a maintenance undertaking or have No Recourse to Public Funds stamped in their passports.
I have friends who cant get their parents in even with a maintenance undertaking!
I have no problem with people importing elderly relatives, we just need to change the law so that people can freely bring dependents in. The problem is that, other than partners, benefits law has no concept of one adult being dependant on another.
But I suppose there are other considerations such as healthcare - it's the time of life when people use the NHS the most.
The problem is that, other than partners, benefits law has no concept of one adult being dependant on another.
But I suppose there are other considerations such as healthcare - it's the time of life when people use the NHS the most.
Maintenance undertakings can deal with the first issue. Insurance and / or bonds with the second. As it is we have the ridiculous situation of families settling in Paris or Dublin for a few months or a year to get around UKBA (this actually happens).
The inquest decided the verdict on a good deal more evidence than is open to you or me.
It is worth bearing in mind that this is the first death while attempting arrest in more than 200 by the met operation on guncrime by london gangs. A pretty impressive record. Commentators should bear this in mind, and also that the number of deaths of young black men at the hands of other young black men has dropped radically over the operation.
Was Duggan a gangster? If you google images of him the most frequent one is him with his cousin (a victim of a gang attack in a night club a few months earlier) and wearing a star t shirt. Then google Tottenham mandem and star gang. Images of his funeral are also interesting.
If it kicks-off tonight then this could well be Cammer's Falklands.
One thing that the police could do is produce more hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal.
He had convictions, but only minor stuff. The police made a lot of allegations about his behaviour at the inquest, I don't know how much it was substantiated by evidence.
Comments
See
http://t.co/0JuWYf9m7X
Abbot, Jasper, Lammy and the rest are of course quite at liberty to question the Jury's verdict as much as they like (and there are aspects of it that do appear odd), but I wonder if it is wholly responsible to be doing so immediately after the verdict, when feelings are running high.
As for Sale East and Wythenshawe, that doesn't look like especially promising UKIP territory to me. Some of the LD vote will probably return to Lab and on a low turnout I could see something like:
Lab 49
Con 22
UKIP 19
LD 6
Other 4
Paul Nuttall far out-polled her in the recent MEP selection.
Laurie Penny @PennyRed 2h
#Duggan wasn't holding the gun, but having a gun doesn't give the police license to kill. The Royal Family often walk around carrying guns!
Isn't she the dullard who spent the evening whining on Twitter whilst kettled by the Met?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25654776
Mark Duggan inquest: questions must be answered before police and community relations can heal
Public trust in the police is fragile. Amid the wider perception of a lack of justice, it is imperative that trust it is rebuilt
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-inquest-serious-questions-police-relations
Has Don Foster announced his intention to stand down in 2015?
Edit: Looks like he is announcing it shortly.
Yes they are.
Unemployed people have also paid in over the years though just like with state like pensions there will be some who some won't have.
Bit of a dead giveaway that you're lurching to the right when "no-brainer" McTernan and Staines are on your side.
*chortle*
In 1992, when Chris Patten lost Bath to Don Foster, Lord McAlpine shouted "Tory Gain"
I wonder what happened to those two? Have their paths crossed ever since?
*Innocent Face*
Heh?
You really have lost the plot.
You think anyone who posts on here or might want to will be comfortable with knowing their names and details of their wife and family and jobs could be maliciously published by some drunken or unstable poster? (both excuses you have used for your behaviour in the past)
It's not just about tim posh Sean.
It's what is and is not acceptable on a reputable site and since this has happened twice now and you are still boasting about it it's becoming pretty damn clear it would seem to be fine.
There is no proposal to "make it illegal to annoy someone". It is worth looking at what Clause 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill actually says.
"1. Power to grant injunctions
(1)A court may grant an injunction under this section against a person aged 10 or
over (“the respondent”) if two conditions are met.
(2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,
that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of
causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“anti-social behaviour”).
(3)The second condition is that the court considers it just and convenient to grant
the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in
anti-social behaviour."
In other words, it only becomes illegal if an injunction is given; and an injunction can only be given if it is proportionate to the situation. When I was concerned about it, I googled it and found that the opponents of the Clause are essentially a collection of single-issue moaners who are complaining that it's going to criminalise children playing, or religious street-preachers, or whatever.
My MP (who is almost as liberal as I am) explained to me (bold added by me):
"The police, local authorities and others will not act lightly in seeking an injunction. They and the courts must exercise such powers in a reasonable, fair and proportionate manner. The draft guidance for frontline professionals highlights that, in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities.
For instance, children simply playing in a park or outside or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction, and failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful."
Likelier next London Mayor.
"One offence which was commonly used was that of "being found on the airport". No other proviso, just being there. Like the hundreds of passengers for instance! Very easy to prove and useful for getting rid of problem visitors like the persons on weekends who visited from around Surrey and Sussex just to have a drink in the bars and shop on the non-air side."
http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt3/pt3GatwickAirport.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html
Jasper, Lammy and Abbott bring race into everything, whether its Gay marriage, the decision on the Pope, which school to send their kids to, how much mothers love their kids...
Then when a white person says something mildly, even accidentally, maybe even not, racist, its " I cant believe in this day and age that race plays any part in... " etc etc
Y'now I just wonder about Wales in 2015. I just wonder. Could the electorate there finally make the connection between catastrophic performance and Labour government?
10% swing from Lib Dem to Lab
10% swing from Con to UKIP
all of BNP goes to UKIP
which makes c. Lab 55%, UKIP 17%, Con 15%, LD 12%
But that's before I even think about it properly.
As it happens, when Eusebio died, it was reported that he had scored 733 goals in 745 matches, so I worked out the Poisson distribution and found that one would expect that there were 2 games in which he scored 5 goals, but probably none with 6 or more. A bit of googling found a few examples of matches in which Eusebio scored 4 goals, but I couldn't find any with 5.
Is there some sort of definitive list where it says what goals he scored? Did he ever score 5 in one match? The fly in the ointment is that I guess that in the real world, goals don't follow the Poisson distribution anyway.
- New and compelling evidence having become available that would have been likely to have affected the decision had it been known to the original panel.
- Procedure not followed resulting in the significant possibility that the hearing was not fairly conducted.
- That the decision was manifestly perverse given the evidence presented.
I think I may have cribbed one or more of those from some memory of legal proceedings but whatever the original sources, they still seem a reasonable set to apply to any appeals process.
I put 'appeals' in quotes in the first sentence as in reality any decision the member of staff didn't like would result in a full re-hearing, so it wasn't so much an appeal against a decision as starting again from scratch.
If that's true, that can only inflame things.
If the law is not supposed to be used for behaviours, "that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities." Then it should say so in the relevant section and not in the guidence notes. Guidance can be amended at any time by an official law can only be amended by act of parliament.
If the current proposals are passed as they stand they carry within them the seeds of a totalitarian state.
Im sorry I put you away on the City bet....
Check out @BBCNews's Tweet:
twitter.com/BBCNews/status/421006686955261953
Can't we have old-fashioned law back where an Act of Parliament states what is illegal, and the court has to prove mens rea as well as actus reus?
I'm grateful for your input though, particularly on the Poisson distribution being applicable to goals, so I've learnt something.
West Ham really are a shower of poop.
Bright Blue Boles @GeneralBoles 22s
I wish I knew how to quit you #EdBalls
pic.twitter.com/sxa4cFBSiy
When did inquest juries change from giving a "verdict" to giving "conclusions"?
And when did it change to explicitly answering a list of questions, as well as the main verdict on the killing itself?
The answers given by the jury in the Duggan case seem to be at a very high level of wisdom and good sense.
You cant get it if someone has signed a maintenance undertaking to support you while living in the UK. You cant get it if you were only allowed in on condition you didnt claim benefits.
Ouch.
Jobseeker's allowance is contributory for 6 months, then you have to apply for it on a means tested basis.
ESA (Work Related Activity Group) is contributory for a year, and then you have to apply for it on a means-tested basis.
ESA (Support Group) is not contributory but if you wouldn't qualify for means tested benefits it is paid at the equivalent of the contributory rate. Capeesh?
Pensions are contributory, you need 35 years' full NI contributions.
BUT you can also apply for Pension Credit which is a non-contributory means-tested benefit, which is actually greater than the Pension rate. So if your only income is a pension, or you don't get a (full) pension, you can still get pension Credit without having paid in a bean. I think Gordon brown invented this one.
Meanwhile the man who'll lose the Tories the election is trying to block freedom of information moves over free schools. If he was confident of his position he'd follow the FOI requests not try to evade them.
:sadly-wodger-prefers-the-company-of-soho-swewer-rats:
Would be interesting to know the proportion of elderly immigrants who have to have a maintenance undertaking or have No Recourse to Public Funds stamped in their passports.
One thing that the police could do is produce more hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal.
He had convictions, but only minor stuff. The police made a lot of allegations about his behaviour at the inquest, I don't know how much it was substantiated by evidence.
How is this for a start:
"Something a bit fishy about the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe. It’s only a hunch based on years of snap and unsubstantiated judgements but I’d arrest him."
Really worth a read.
But I can't believe Gove is any more culpable than any of our politicians, nor that a theoretical LibDem in the role of Secretary of State for Education would do any differently.
* Damien Green 'arrest' (Parliamentary intrusion by The-Armed-Wing-of-the-Labour-Party): Wonderful; Andrew Mitchell's abuse by said 'Armed-Wing': hilarious. Sven: A failure....
But I suppose there are other considerations such as healthcare - it's the time of life when people use the NHS the most.
It is worth bearing in mind that this is the first death while attempting arrest in more than 200 by the met operation on guncrime by london gangs. A pretty impressive record. Commentators should bear this in mind, and also that the number of deaths of young black men at the hands of other young black men has dropped radically over the operation.
Was Duggan a gangster? If you google images of him the most frequent one is him with his cousin (a victim of a gang attack in a night club a few months earlier) and wearing a star t shirt. Then google Tottenham mandem and star gang. Images of his funeral are also interesting.