Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A freebie for Sir Keir from a Tory – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,128
edited April 2021 in General
imageA freebie for Sir Keir from a Tory – politicalbetting.com

 Harold Wilson said in 1964, “The Labour party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.” By 2015 the focus was rather on what was moral about a crusade: which in many ways epitomises Labour’s problems all too neatly. In a recent thread, it was suggested that Labour needed some policies to attract attention and get voters motivated once again. My response was a Workers Charter. I suggested the following policies.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,889
    First
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463
    Third like the Scottish tories
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,889
    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    And precisely who is going to pay them while they are on holiday?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    Interesting ideas.

    And that's what Labour needs right now - the specifics can come later.

    But we're not all equally dependent upon the gig economy.

    Its predominantly an urban thing with the urban working class being the exploited providers and the urban middle class being the exploiting recipients.

    And who do the urban middle class vote for ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    ClippP said:

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    And precisely who is going to pay them while they are on holiday?
    Well. Their employer if they are employees.
    What constitutes an employee is at the root of the question.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,947
    edited April 2021
    There are at least three problems with the solutions the author proposes:

    - many studies show that increasing the cost of labour does indeed reduce the demand for it, though some do not.
    - there's not much evidence that those that are self-employed actually want these protections, rather than, say, higher pay, however much the legal establishment want them to have them. 90% of those for whom the gig economy is their main source of income are satisfied with it (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf) Many value the flexibility of the gig economy.
    - in any case, I doubt it would do anything to boost Labour support as most (56%) of these workers are 16-34, and they disproportionately live in big cities where Labour already has gigantic leads.

    I'm afraid Sir Keir will have to look elsewhere to beat Boris.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    dixiedean said:

    ClippP said:

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    And precisely who is going to pay them while they are on holiday?
    Well. Their employer if they are employees.
    What constitutes an employee is at the root of the question.
    I believe NYC has/had some legislation on this. Not my field, but I think the rule was pretty basic, along the lines that if more than 85% of your income comes from providing labour to one entity, that entity is indeed your employer.
  • Regarding the definition of "self-employment", from the HMRC website:

    If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a sole trader. This means you’re self-employed - even if you haven’t yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

    You’re probably self-employed if you:

    run your business for yourself and take responsibility for its success or failure
    have several customers at the same time
    can decide how, where and when you do your work
    can hire other people at your own expense to help you or to do the work for you
    provide the main items of equipment to do your work
    are responsible for finishing any unsatisfactory work in your own time
    charge an agreed fixed price for your work
    sell goods or services to make a profit

    As a self-employed person you pay a lower rate of National Insurance and so you do not get statutory sick pay or unemployment pay. Also, by definition there is no Employer to pay the Employer's contribution. Similarly, there is no Employer to pay you Sick Pay or Holiday Pay. In short, if you do not work you do not get paid.

    If it looks like a duck ...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Fishing said:

    There are at least three problems with the solutions the author proposes:

    - many studies show that increasing the cost of labour does indeed reduce the demand for it, though some do not.
    - there's not much evidence that those that are self-employed actually want these protections, rather than, say, higher pay, however much the legal establishment want them to have them. 90% of those for whom the gig economy is their main source of income are satisfied with it (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf) Many value the flexibility of the gig economy.
    - in any case, I doubt it would do anything to boost Labour support as most (56%) of these workers are 16-34, and they disproportionately live in big cities where Labour already has gigantic leads.

    I'm afraid Sir Keir will have to look elsewhere to beat Boris.

    Firstly many thanks to Mike for some neat editing.

    In response to your points I fully recognise that our very flexible employment market is a major factor in the significant increase in employment since 2010 and I would not want to lose that. I recognise that many who work in the gig economy welcome that flexibility and find it advantageous for them whether this is a second job, being done around their studies etc. But as our economy changes more people are being trapped in this sector finding it hard to get conventional employment. We need to do better by them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    MattW said:



    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    Absolutely 100% correct.

    But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.

    If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.

    But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?

    Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen.
    Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
    Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
    Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.

    If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.

    If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
    So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?

    Far too simplistic.
    Why not? If you want an area protected it should be owned by something like the National Trust instead who won't build on it.

    So why doesn't Kinder Scout get bought by the National Trust or something like that in order to protect it? Oh wait, its already owned by the National Trust.

    National Parks and the National Trust are one thing, but privately owned land - that should be on the owner. Its their possession to do with as they please, within the law.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Yes, Comrade. Nice one. Totally onboard.. :smile:
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Excellent header David.
    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    England new vaccinations:

    First dose 124,858
    Second dose 478,008
    Total doses 602,866

    Third highest day on record.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456

    England new vaccinations:

    First dose 124,858
    Second dose 478,008
    Total doses 602,866

    Third highest day on record.

    Nah, we're crawling by now, surely?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    TimT said:

    England new vaccinations:

    First dose 124,858
    Second dose 478,008
    Total doses 602,866

    Third highest day on record.

    Nah, we're crawling by now, surely?
    The war of words with the EU over vaccines has escalated as France’s foreign minister claimed Britain will struggle to source second Covid jabs but that Brussels would not be “blackmailed” into exporting doses to solve the problem.

    Jean-Yves Le Drian, a close political ally of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, claimed that the UK’s success had been built on driving forward with first jabs without having secured the second doses necessary for full vaccination.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
    Yes that's my point too. How about as a left-field suggestion having a much higher minimum wage for anyone self-employed?

    If the national minimum wage is say £10 per hour, then honest employers need to accrue for Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions and more - bringing it to more like £15 per hour once you accrue for all other costs.

    So how about saying that self-employment can continue, but if you are hiring someone self-employed then you need to pay a £15 per hour minimum wage. The self-employed person can then pay their own taxes, holidays, pensions and set money aside for when sick from that.

    Level playing field.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    It's not all shit in American Policing

    Newark Police officers did not fire a single shot during the calendar year 2020, and the city didn’t pay a single dime to settle police brutality cases. That’s never happened, at least in the city’s modern history.

    Oh, and crime is dropping.

    https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1386297356195450881
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Interesting header, thank you!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    Need to find ways to overcome the divisivemess of recent years = pipe dream.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
    Yes that's my point too. How about as a left-field suggestion having a much higher minimum wage for anyone self-employed?

    If the national minimum wage is say £10 per hour, then honest employers need to accrue for Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions and more - bringing it to more like £15 per hour once you accrue for all other costs.

    So how about saying that self-employment can continue, but if you are hiring someone self-employed then you need to pay a £15 per hour minimum wage. The self-employed person can then pay their own taxes, holidays, pensions and set money aside for when sick from that.

    Level playing field.
    I guess it's a bit like social care. I don't think any politician would address this issue simply because no one is complaining about it.

    It might be the right thing to do, but why should the politicians (of any colour) get involved? All the media will do is focus on the downsides (employees are second class citizens, etc. etc.).

    Far easier to leave things as they are and let nature take its course.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    edited April 2021
    Is David Logan Keir Starmer .. or one of his spads?
  • SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz
  • Nice piece DavidL.

    As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!
  • Is David Logan Keir Starmer .. or one of his spads?

    A longstanding PBer.
  • When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    You need to post on social media that you're in favour of vaccine passports and you'll get your invitation shortly thereafter.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,947
    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798

    Is David Logan Keir Starmer .. or one of his spads?

    A longstanding PBer.
    Known as 'Wolverine' in Scottish legal circles I believe.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,947

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Yes, that's the Conservative, economically literate solution. Of course it blows a hole in the public finances, but starving the beast is exactly what our bloated government needs.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Is David Logan Keir Starmer .. or one of his spads?

    No he’s @DavidL
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Interesting piece David.

    The key point for me is this: Labour used to be a mass movement representing the interests of the average worker; today, Labour is a niche movement representing only special interests of minority groups that are often at odds with those of the average worker.

    That's why it isn't going anywhere.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,947
    edited April 2021
    DavidL said:

    Fishing said:

    There are at least three problems with the solutions the author proposes:

    - many studies show that increasing the cost of labour does indeed reduce the demand for it, though some do not.
    - there's not much evidence that those that are self-employed actually want these protections, rather than, say, higher pay, however much the legal establishment want them to have them. 90% of those for whom the gig economy is their main source of income are satisfied with it (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf) Many value the flexibility of the gig economy.
    - in any case, I doubt it would do anything to boost Labour support as most (56%) of these workers are 16-34, and they disproportionately live in big cities where Labour already has gigantic leads.

    I'm afraid Sir Keir will have to look elsewhere to beat Boris.

    Firstly many thanks to Mike for some neat editing.

    In response to your points I fully recognise that our very flexible employment market is a major factor in the significant increase in employment since 2010 and I would not want to lose that. I recognise that many who work in the gig economy welcome that flexibility and find it advantageous for them whether this is a second job, being done around their studies etc. But as our economy changes more people are being trapped in this sector finding it hard to get conventional employment. We need to do better by them.
    Even if they don't actually want it, and aren't really trapped anyway?

    Paternalism at its most patronising and half-baked.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Does anyone have any idea what the postal vote percentage is in Scotland.

    I find myself longing for the ludicrously privacy busting detail of American early voting stats
  • Alistair said:

    Does anyone have any idea what the postal vote percentage is in Scotland.

    I find myself longing for the ludicrously privacy busting detail of American early voting stats

    17.7% in 2016.

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/scottish-parliamentary-elections/report-how-2016-scottish-parliament-election-was-run
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    And were HMRC to find out the above were true both parties will be fined. These people were also some of the people most impacted by the for lough scheme because 80%of £300 wasn't enough to live on.

    If however you think that I bad you should see the impact IR35 is having on sectors of the economy even I didn't know we're party to the changes. Self employed delivery and lorry drivers are seeing their pay drop 20% as employer and employee NI is deducted in an industry where price is everything.

    When pay parity rules for agency workers kicks in ( after 13 weeks so end of June) it's going to be a nightmare as many firms were using agency drivers because they were cheaper than permanent staff - unless they start playing games by swapping end client every 12 weeks there are going to be problems come July.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I know the feeling.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    Alistair said:

    Does anyone have any idea what the postal vote percentage is in Scotland.

    I find myself longing for the ludicrously privacy busting detail of American early voting stats

    Sure I saw on Twitter that applications are at c.27%, the highest ever.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited April 2021
    Re vaccines....think worth pointing out that Pulse reported that it is expected that in the next week the government will say that it is open to 40-44 to get invited.

    If you are in that age bracket might be worth giving the NHS covid vaccination website a cheeky ping over the next few days. Shhhh, don't tell anybody, but previously despite it saying not available to the next cohort, often the backend appears to get updated a few days before the public announcement is made and it is possible to book one.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    I still recall with horror some of the things I heard whilst on jury service.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    "I’d love the answer to be Boris ..."

    I think Boris has definitely moved out of the "answer" category and into the "problem" category now.

    If you're so stupid and incompetent that you need others to do all the planning and execution for you, then you at least need to be capable of retaining their loyalty. Otherwise what have you got to offer?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited April 2021
    Fishing said:

    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.

    Appealing specifically to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns.

    Can you give an example of a potential Labour policy that would tick this box?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.

    Can you give an example of a potential Labour policy that would tick this box?
    Fixed for you...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    edited April 2021

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I'm afraid you will still have it after the 1st jab. I'm 66 and know so many younger than me (by just a few years, but in the group below) who have had their 2nd jab and I am getting irritated.

    Just console yourself with the fact that us oldies would swap with you any day. My thirties was my happiest time I think.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    You need to post on social media that you're in favour of vaccine passports and you'll get your invitation shortly thereafter.
    Indeed. I gather that Laurence Fox is now going to have to wait until they reach his mental rather than chronological age. I'm not sure they are even doing clinical trials on people that young yet.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Nice piece DavidL.

    As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.

    As someone who understands how the gig economy works -I actively avoid going anywhere near it.

    If a local takeaway does its own delivery I will use that otherwise I will get in the car and collect.

    Prices are usually cheaper as well
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    Is David Logan Keir Starmer .. or one of his spads?

    Err, no.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,503
    edited April 2021

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
    Yes that's my point too. How about as a left-field suggestion having a much higher minimum wage for anyone self-employed?

    If the national minimum wage is say £10 per hour, then honest employers need to accrue for Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions and more - bringing it to more like £15 per hour once you accrue for all other costs.

    So how about saying that self-employment can continue, but if you are hiring someone self-employed then you need to pay a £15 per hour minimum wage. The self-employed person can then pay their own taxes, holidays, pensions and set money aside for when sick from that.

    Level playing field.
    Interesting discussion on this thread, thanks to David for starting it. An issue is that "self-employed" covers quite different jobs.

    Philip's proposal works well for people who are "intermittently employed" - typically people engaged at times of peak demand, with a spillover into the deceitful category of people who are in reality full-time staff but whose employer wants to avoid giving them holidays etc. These people are vulnerable and need the kind of protection that DavidL's or Philip's solutions would help.

    It's not relevant for people who are self-employed in the sense of doing some work when they want to. My evening job is translation for numerous agencies - I do some when I have the time, and I pick and choose which texts I'm comfortable with translation (Euro-legislation yes, engineering manuals no). I don't feel they're exploiting me in any way - they are taking a commission to find possible jobs for me. The key difference from Uber is that I'm in control - I take work when I want it, and no employer can tell me to hang about without pay waiting for it to turn up.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited April 2021

    Nice piece DavidL.

    As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.

    The most ridiculous thing about the whole business model of the likes of Uber Eats is despite screwing the restaurants and the drivers / riders, they still losing money hand over fist....even in a sodding pandemic when people can't go out, they aren't making money.

    I mean Amazon screw they drivers and suppliers, but you they ain't losing £100 million of quid every year just existing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.

    Can you give an example of a potential Labour policy that would tick this box?
    Fixed for you...
    Oh do pop off, Francis. I said "potential" Labour policy. You wouldn't expect a load of actual ones this far out from a GE.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,172

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    Next couple of weeks probably.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    Interesting piece David.

    The key point for me is this: Labour used to be a mass movement representing the interests of the average worker; today, Labour is a niche movement representing only special interests of minority groups that are often at odds with those of the average worker.

    That's why it isn't going anywhere.

    And that's what they need to change. Policies like this that affect the working man and woman who's not doing so well out of our modern economy should be their bread and butter showing that they are interested and that they care. Until they do those red wall seats and seats like Hartlepool are going to drift away from them. Similar policies should focus on housing, our embarrassingly poor treatment of immigrants, educational attainment in poor areas, real issues which affect peoples' lives rather more than unisex toilets.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Fishing said:

    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.

    What does it say, and how many former Labour leaders would turn in the graves, when today’s Labour Party seems unwilling to call out exploitative employment practices lest it upset their urban middle class voters?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    kjh said:

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I'm afraid you will still have it after the 1st jab. I'm 66 and know so many younger than me (by just a few years, but in the group below) who have had their 2nd jab and I am getting irritated.

    Just console yourself with the fact that us oldies would swap with you any day. My thirties was my happiest time I think.
    PS For some reason I believe you are in Alton. People I know in Farnham in a group that should have been after me got their first jab 2 weeks before me. Not sure if that helps. Very close by, but different county of course.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    Alistair said:

    Does anyone have any idea what the postal vote percentage is in Scotland.

    I find myself longing for the ludicrously privacy busting detail of American early voting stats

    Sure I saw on Twitter that applications are at c.27%, the highest ever.
    Yes, I saw something similar. It would be remarkable if postal votes were not a record this year given the pandemic.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece David.

    The key point for me is this: Labour used to be a mass movement representing the interests of the average worker; today, Labour is a niche movement representing only special interests of minority groups that are often at odds with those of the average worker.

    That's why it isn't going anywhere.

    And that's what they need to change. Policies like this that affect the working man and woman who's not doing so well out of our modern economy should be their bread and butter showing that they are interested and that they care. Until they do those red wall seats and seats like Hartlepool are going to drift away from them. Similar policies should focus on housing, our embarrassingly poor treatment of immigrants, educational attainment in poor areas, real issues which affect peoples' lives rather more than unisex toilets.
    Yes, they need to focus on unifying people - not dividing them.
  • tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    Basingstoke has been a bit shit on vaccines
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I'm afraid you will still have it after the 1st jab. I'm 66 and know so many younger than me (by just a few years, but in the group below) who have had their 2nd jab and I am getting irritated.

    Just console yourself with the fact that us oldies would swap with you any day. My thirties was my happiest time I think.
    PS For some reason I believe you are in Alton. People I know in Farnham in a group that should have been after me got their first jab 2 weeks before me. Not sure if that helps. Very close by, but different county of course.
    Yes, that's right.

    I'm not sure if proximity makes a difference. It can depend on the practice at which you are registered, and its approach to its lists.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I'm afraid you will still have it after the 1st jab. I'm 66 and know so many younger than me (by just a few years, but in the group below) who have had their 2nd jab and I am getting irritated.

    Just console yourself with the fact that us oldies would swap with you any day. My thirties was my happiest time I think.
    PS For some reason I believe you are in Alton. People I know in Farnham in a group that should have been after me got their first jab 2 weeks before me. Not sure if that helps. Very close by, but different county of course.
    In Woking, here. My 72 year old mum got her 2nd on Friday and my 74 year old dad gets his at 17:00 today.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I know the feeling.
    Blimey... I thought you were in your 50s...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    Chris said:

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    You need to post on social media that you're in favour of vaccine passports and you'll get your invitation shortly thereafter.
    Indeed. I gather that Laurence Fox is now going to have to wait until they reach his mental rather than chronological age. I'm not sure they are even doing clinical trials on people that young yet.
    I couldn't resist looking at his latest pronouncement:
    "Yesterday we marched again. And we won’t stop until we get out freedom back in it’s entirety."

    To give him his due, he does seem to inspire paternal devotion. Many fathers would be on the phone to Harrow asking for a refund!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header David.

    tlg86 said:

    Excellent header, thanks David.

    I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.

    Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.

    We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.

    As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.

    We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
    Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
    Yes that's my point too. How about as a left-field suggestion having a much higher minimum wage for anyone self-employed?

    If the national minimum wage is say £10 per hour, then honest employers need to accrue for Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions and more - bringing it to more like £15 per hour once you accrue for all other costs.

    So how about saying that self-employment can continue, but if you are hiring someone self-employed then you need to pay a £15 per hour minimum wage. The self-employed person can then pay their own taxes, holidays, pensions and set money aside for when sick from that.

    Level playing field.
    Interesting discussion on this thread, thanks to David for starting it. An issue is that "self-employed" covers quite different jobs.

    Philip's proposal works well for people who are "intermittently employed" - typically people engaged at times of peak demand, with a spillover into the deceitful category of people who are in reality full-time staff but whose employer wants to avoid giving them holidays etc. These people are vulnerable and need the kind of protection that DavidL's or Philip's solutions would help.

    It's not relevant for people who are self-employed in the sense of doing some work when they want to. My evening job is translation for numerous agencies - I do some when I have the time, and I pick and choose which texts I'm comfortable with translation (Euro-legislation yes, engineering manuals no). I don't feel they're exploiting me in any way - they are taking a commission to find possible jobs for me. The key difference from Uber is that I'm in control - I take work when I want it, and no employer can tell me to hang about without pay waiting for it to turn up.
    Yes, self employed covers a very wide range. I am self employed as an advocate and don't really need protection from the State. I think we need to recognise that insisting that you are self employed when you are the sole or major source of work for the individual, you can control who else they work for, that they work at your convenience and not theirs and they don't really have a choice about doing a piece of work (certainly if they want any more) is an abuse, just as drivers subject to Uber's rule book were being abused. Legislation will need to tease out these strands and make sure that it does not do more harm than good but there are a lot of people getting taken a loan of right now.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Interesting header, thanks.

    I am still waiting for my second Pfizer jab. I now have a link to the vaccination centre in Barrow and keep checking every day but no appointments are available. A waiting game I guess. I do hope the government has secured enough Pfizer doses for second jabs.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    edited April 2021

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,172
    "19,565 people are currently predicted to have symptomatic COVID in the UK"

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited April 2021
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Apparently this was the smoking gun:
    "Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.
    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.
    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson."
    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-jailed-life-16-years-19454105
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    Oooft.

    This sounds pretty bad.

    As in, if correct those involved are still alive they should be facing criminal charges and long prison sentences, while Malkinson is clearly entitled to substantial compensation.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,503
    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.

    And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.

    What does it say, and how many former Labour leaders would turn in the graves, when today’s Labour Party seems unwilling to call out exploitative employment practices lest it upset their urban middle class voters?
    But they're not. I frequently get party emails criticising gig economy employment practices, and when the election comes round I expect to see proposals - quite possibly including some of David's. (I don't expect them for the County election, since County Councils can't do anything about employment law.)
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    My gp is still working their way through group 9 50+

    Sloooow progress....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Alistair said:

    Does anyone have any idea what the postal vote percentage is in Scotland.

    I find myself longing for the ludicrously privacy busting detail of American early voting stats

    Ruth the mooth will be giving it out shortly no doubt. Ours were posted yesterday, nose held very tightly and voted SNP with ALBA for List. Expectation that Sturgeon's days are numbered and her recent performances tend to suggest that she knows the game is up. The court cases will prove for certain she and her coterie are wrong uns.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,172
    "Germany, Kantar poll:

    GRÜNE: 28% (+6)
    CDU/CSU: 27% (-2)
    SPD: 13% (-2)
    AfD: 10% (-1)
    FDP: 9%
    LINKE: 7% (-1)

    +/- vs. 8-14 April 2021

    Fieldwork: 15-21 April 2021
    Sample size: 1,225"

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1386065566377680897
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    Good header by David L
  • TimT said:

    England new vaccinations:

    First dose 124,858
    Second dose 478,008
    Total doses 602,866

    Third highest day on record.

    Nah, we're crawling by now, surely?
    The war of words with the EU over vaccines has escalated as France’s foreign minister claimed Britain will struggle to source second Covid jabs but that Brussels would not be “blackmailed” into exporting doses to solve the problem.

    Jean-Yves Le Drian, a close political ally of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, claimed that the UK’s success had been built on driving forward with first jabs without having secured the second doses necessary for full vaccination.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail
    Yeah its almost as if we took a calculated gamble to give as many people as possible the bulk of the needed immunity and move onto second jabs later on. Arent we now ahead on not only first jabs but second jabs also?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    UK sending oxygen and ventilators to India. Details below https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1386328787651018754/photo/1
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    Hmm

    on topic.

    Excellent policy suggestions from @DavidL

    The opposition to these come from the osbornites/cameroons who are basically in exile at this point. Liz truss and similar might make a few noises, but can be ignored.

    A few middle class ppl might get mildly pissed off, but they aren’t important.

    The tories should go for it. Outlabour labour.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting header, thanks.

    I am still waiting for my second Pfizer jab. I now have a link to the vaccination centre in Barrow and keep checking every day but no appointments are available. A waiting game I guess. I do hope the government has secured enough Pfizer doses for second jabs.

    Mine is booked for next Sunday , so under the 12 weeks, my brother is same. Both wives getting their AZ jab this coming week as well so under 12 weeks.
  • SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Stories like this make me cry inside. How utterly awful.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    This is concerning from the Mail:

    She also told police she left a 'deep scratch' on her attacker's cheek - however Malkinson was not seen with one when arrested.

    It also would have meant that DNA from his skin would have likely been under her nails - though the DNA was last year found not to be a match with Malkinson.


    I know science moves on, but was it really not possible to check this at the time?

    This sounds conspiracy rather than cock-up.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
    Where do you get "he didn't resemble the description" from? Because his height was different?

    Obviously the point is that he was on the parade only because he resembled the description, and that he was picked out because the witnesses thought they resembled the man they'd seen.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    Yes.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    tlg86 said:

    This is concerning from the Mail:

    She also told police she left a 'deep scratch' on her attacker's cheek - however Malkinson was not seen with one when arrested.

    It also would have meant that DNA from his skin would have likely been under her nails - though the DNA was last year found not to be a match with Malkinson.


    I know science moves on, but was it really not possible to check this at the time?

    This sounds conspiracy rather than cock-up.

    And means the real culprit has got off scot free all these years.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    https://mg.co.za/coronavirus-essentials/2021-04-19-pfizer-backs-down-over-unreasonable-terms-in-south-africa-vaccine-deal/

    In other negotiations, Pfizer went further. The company required some Latin American governments to put up sovereign assets, including federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases — as a guarantee against indemnifying the cost of future legal cases.

    Unredacted draft contracts between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic, Albania and Peru show that the company sought to be indemnified against problems at any step of the supply chain — including packaging, manufacturing and storage. Experts told the Bureau it was “unreasonable” to require governments to pick up the bill for any negligence by Pfizer.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited April 2021
    ydoethur said:

    Oooft.

    This sounds pretty bad.

    As in, if correct those involved are still alive they should be facing criminal charges and long prison sentences, while Malkinson is clearly entitled to substantial compensation.

    It's not straightforward..

    Assuming his conviction is overturned, compensation from the Ministry of Justice is not taken for granted. Since a change to the law in 2014, applicants must demonstrate innocence “beyond reasonable doubt” to qualify.

    Victor Nealon, whose case was similar to Malkinson’s, was not paid compensation. Nealon spent 17 years in prison for attempted rape and his conviction was overturned in 2013 after new DNA evidence pointed to another attacker. After losing a case in the Supreme Court over compensation, he is taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Nealon has not received a penny so far.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
    Where do you get "he didn't resemble the description" from? Because his height was different?

    Obviously the point is that he was on the parade only because he resembled the description, and that he was picked out because the witnesses thought they resembled the man they'd seen.
    He was on parade because the police thought it might be him (the wrong answers don't get prosecuted if they get picked out!).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    TimT said:

    England new vaccinations:

    First dose 124,858
    Second dose 478,008
    Total doses 602,866

    Third highest day on record.

    Nah, we're crawling by now, surely?
    The war of words with the EU over vaccines has escalated as France’s foreign minister claimed Britain will struggle to source second Covid jabs but that Brussels would not be “blackmailed” into exporting doses to solve the problem.

    Jean-Yves Le Drian, a close political ally of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, claimed that the UK’s success had been built on driving forward with first jabs without having secured the second doses necessary for full vaccination.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail
    Yes, but he's a French Minister, or a French Person who is a European Commissioner, and they need Grand Gestures like a peacock.

    The biggest gesture - a veritable Grand Projet - will be Mons. Macaron's riposte to the EU circling the wagons around a 20 billion Euro vaccine factory in Germany.

    What do you suppose he will do?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited April 2021
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
    Where do you get "he didn't resemble the description" from? Because his height was different?

    Obviously the point is that he was on the parade only because he resembled the description, and that he was picked out because the witnesses thought they resembled the man they'd seen.
    His height, his face, his voice were all apparently different.

    And yet he was picked out.

    So there are two possibilities:

    1) The original description was wrong - which frequently happens, e.g. in the Hanratty case where the initial report of the attacker’s eye colour was wrong due to a transcription error;

    2) Or, the witnesses (on whom material information was withheld) and the victim were given guidance on who to pick.

    The first is not a significant issue, and would not therefore invalidate the conviction.

    The second, however...

    Edit - and I would point out he seems to have resembled the Identikit, not the description.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    tlg86 said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
    Where do you get "he didn't resemble the description" from? Because his height was different?

    Obviously the point is that he was on the parade only because he resembled the description, and that he was picked out because the witnesses thought they resembled the man they'd seen.
    He was on parade because the police thought it might be him (the wrong answers don't get prosecuted if they get picked out!).
    Well, you asked why he was on the parade in the first place, and two people told you - "his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson." You even seemed to understand the answer to start with!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    SCAB

    A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.

    Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.

    There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.

    Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.

    Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.

    Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-served-17-years-in-jail-but-dna-proves-real-rapist-is-still-at-large-0rcjmrwfz

    Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
    Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.

    Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.

    Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.

    A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
    Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).

    I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.

    If so, that's incredibly serious.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.

    EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
    The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.

    The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
    So he was identified by her and witnesses?
    It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
    The point being he didn’t resemble that description.

    So why was he picked out?
    Where do you get "he didn't resemble the description" from? Because his height was different?

    Obviously the point is that he was on the parade only because he resembled the description, and that he was picked out because the witnesses thought they resembled the man they'd seen.
    He was on parade because the police thought it might be him (the wrong answers don't get prosecuted if they get picked out!).
    Well, you asked why he was on the parade in the first place, and two people told you - "his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson." You even seemed to understand the answer to start with!
    Yes, but he was then picked out by the victim and witnesses who put him at the scene. The three things - the police finding who they think has done it and the identification by the victim and witnesses - are independent of each other.

    Or, at least, they should be.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,172
    "The House looks like a GOP lock in 2022, but the Senate will be much harder"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/28/house-looks-like-gop-lock-2022-senate-will-be-much-harder/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470

    Interesting piece David.

    The key point for me is this: Labour used to be a mass movement representing the interests of the average worker; today, Labour is a niche movement representing only special interests of minority groups that are often at odds with those of the average worker.

    That's why it isn't going anywhere.

    I don't see the Tolpuddle Martyrs getting much sympathy from the modern Labour member.

    "How dare these uppity rustics want a pay rise, have them flogged and transported and replace them with some cheap migrants"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
    Is hung with bloom along the bough,
    And stands about the woodland ride
    Wearing white for Eastertide.

    Now, of my threescore years and ten,
    Twenty will not come again,
    And take from seventy springs a score,
    It only leaves me fifty more.

    And since to look at things in bloom
    Fifty springs are little room,
    About the woodlands I will go
    To see the cherry hung with snow.

  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    Solidarity out there with all the not-even-first-dosed PBers. I think we need to form some sort of support group.

    I still can't work out what the strategy is on Scottish first doses, though they have picked up very slightly recently, but still seems like they are finishing off a group rather than starting a new cohort.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    When will the 35-39 age bracket generally start getting invitations?

    I live in mid-Hants and am starting to get pb vaccine envy!

    I'm afraid you will still have it after the 1st jab. I'm 66 and know so many younger than me (by just a few years, but in the group below) who have had their 2nd jab and I am getting irritated.

    Just console yourself with the fact that us oldies would swap with you any day. My thirties was my happiest time I think.
    PS For some reason I believe you are in Alton. People I know in Farnham in a group that should have been after me got their first jab 2 weeks before me. Not sure if that helps. Very close by, but different county of course.
    Yes, that's right.

    I'm not sure if proximity makes a difference. It can depend on the practice at which you are registered, and its approach to its lists.
    You are right of course - just trying to cheer you up :smiley:
This discussion has been closed.