@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
It's obvs not a competition but I don't think this is true.
Much or at least some of it is in the confidence that is displayed (hence why I believe fighting systems are so important to learn even if they are never deployed in anger) and it is surely the case that a majority of men whether rightly or wrongly or generally more physically confident than the majority of women.
Just by being a woman often and to the wrong type of person, someone is, tragically, "presenting themselves as a victim". That happens less often I believe with men.
But then I have no stats on anything.
Most men are men and therefore not sexually attractive to the men out to rape women, or even to catcall or make suggestive remarks. And I'd be wary of going too far down the self-defence route. Most fights descend into wrestling where weight and brute strength count. Running, or at least walking, away is probably best.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
It's obvs not a competition but I don't think this is true.
Much or at least some of it is in the confidence that is displayed (hence why I believe fighting systems are so important to learn even if they are never deployed in anger) and it is surely the case that a majority of men whether rightly or wrongly or generally more physically confident than the majority of women.
Just by being a woman often and to the wrong type of person, someone is, tragically, "presenting themselves as a victim". That happens less often I believe with men.
But then I have no stats on anything.
I suspect getting stats on attacks by strangers would be quite hard - and that's what we're interested in.
Let me ask a difficult question: Do you think black men are more safe on the street than white men?
I have known several women who have been abused and attacked. None were by strangers. All were by family members or family friends.
(A relative was nearly attacked whilst working as a nurse in the 1960s. She was followed and grasped; she managed to run to the nursing residence before he could stop her, after which a posse went out to try to find him. This is the only direct anecdote I've heard about a stranger attacking a woman.)
While a school girl, my mother in law got off a bus in Mill Hill, and was followed by an older man who pestered her. She clobbered him with her satchel and ran off. She only told us this story a couple of years ago, but it had clearly stuck in her memory. It would have been the late 1940s.
These things are often hidden for decades, or just taken to the grave.
Our extended family got to hear of a child abuser in our midst about 4 decades after the sexual assault and 3 decades after the perpetrator’s death. I suspect we would never have heard about it if the victim (one of his victims?) hadn’t received counselling for an unrelated personal issue.
There are several films set in the US, I saw one the other day but can't remember the name of it, where the baddies are being chased by State police and it's a race to the State border after which the baddies continue unhindered and the State police (usually in the films) get out of their cars at the border line, put their hands on their hips, and stare wistfully after their disappearing prey.
I am sure there are parallels where you are allowed to cross a border into someone else's country after your quarry. I think that's what "hot pursuit" means.
Thanks. That, and hue and cry, were what I had in mind.
Crossing the Mexican border in pursuit of miscreants the theme of many a western.
On a slightly connected note I hadn't realised the origins of the term filibustering, 'someone who engages in an (at least nominally) unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country or territory to foment or support a political revolution or secession'. Not the most favourable association, though it does describs much of US foreign policy for the last 150ish years.
I wonder what actually means? You often get the news interviewing the neighbours and they say "I'd never have guessed, he seemed like such a nice bloke, etc. etc."
If they were asked to submit something formally, well, there's loyalty and then there's that.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
It's obvs not a competition but I don't think this is true.
Much or at least some of it is in the confidence that is displayed (hence why I believe fighting systems are so important to learn even if they are never deployed in anger) and it is surely the case that a majority of men whether rightly or wrongly or generally more physically confident than the majority of women.
Just by being a woman often and to the wrong type of person, someone is, tragically, "presenting themselves as a victim". That happens less often I believe with men.
But then I have no stats on anything.
Most men are men and therefore not sexually attractive to the men out to rape women, or even to catcall or make suggestive remarks. And I'd be wary of going too far down the self-defence route. Most fights descend into wrestling where weight and brute strength count. Running, or at least walking, away is probably best.
Of course it is. And nothing worse than false confidence after your second session at the gym if it gets you battered. But non-sexual assault-wise people will often think twice about tackling someone who they perceive to be quite handy.
I also think the idea of bringing in senior officers who are not police is a good one. The greasy pole appears to well and truly in place within the police forces, and fresh blood - and fresh eyes - at the top could be positive.
All good stuff Mr Jessop, but I want to highlight this bit. One person who never gets mentioned is Tom Winsor:
A close friend of mine is a police officer and he has zero respect for Winsor on the grounds that he has no idea what it's like to be a cop.
I think an outside perspective is always helpful, but imposing non-police management on the rank and file could lead to outright revolt.
Being a policeman is a horrible, difficult job. You put yourself in harms way every day, dealing with criminals, the insane, and event the drunken public.
Your every action is scrutinised. If you slip up, it's front page news. You have to jump through 1,000 hoops to put even the most obviously guilty man behind bars.
If I was a policeman, I'd probably feel the world was against me.
The problem is that this kind of situation results in people putting loyalty to the group ahead of loyalty to the truth, or to what is morally right. If you see a colleague being attacked in the press, you rush to defend him. The union stands up to defend him. And senior officers follow suit.
Because it's a difficult job, and people on the outside can't understand.
Unfortunately, when you put your critical faculties away, and elevate loyalty to the group above all, well, that's when terrible shit happens. Otherwise good people cover up terrible atrocities, because they don't want to do *their* group down.
It's exactly the same kind of mentality that results in so many moderate Muslims defending terrorists. Terrorist who - it should be noted - would feel no compunction about murdering said moderate.
@Cyclefree is right. Those who exercise power over their fellow citizens need to be held to higher standards. Yes, we need to be aware that people are in shitty situations, and will sometimes react poorly. But we cannot have a situation where policemen attempt to fit up members of the cabinet, or who perjure themselves to bring prosecutions against innocent people (whose lives seem far more scarred than those of the police), or who look out for a colleague jokingly called "rapist".
I've had few interactions with the police, but I've always found them to be extremely courteous even when I was nabbed for speeding on the M1. I find their patience with the cretins they have to deal with, often deliberately baiting them that they have to deal with on a daily basis absolutely fucking remarkable - with the likes of the M1 blockers they can't win either - ripping their glued hands off the M1 would probably land them in trouble even though I'd be sorely tempted to if I was an officer. Now I may be inclined to be supportive of the police than most due to my family history, but I think the average officer would probably want to see Couzens hang for his actions.
@Ydoethur point that a police officer should have to pass at least the same checks as a teacher is a good one.
Yep, there are many good police and that should not be forgotten.* Of course, weeding out the bad ones and improving the culture will only be a good thing for the good officers. They won't have to work with shits (well, only the public...) and will be held in greater regard.
*Recent experience, in London we walked past an XR protest. Lots of police mingling with protestors, chatting, very low key. Saw one person getting arrested, also low key. A couple of officers stopped to say hello to my son (ovehearing him pointing out all the police and police vans to us) and complimented him on his superhero t-shirt and his XR sticker (of which he was very proud, having been given it on the way past by a protestor).
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
It's obvs not a competition but I don't think this is true.
Much or at least some of it is in the confidence that is displayed (hence why I believe fighting systems are so important to learn even if they are never deployed in anger) and it is surely the case that a majority of men whether rightly or wrongly or generally more physically confident than the majority of women.
Just by being a woman often and to the wrong type of person, someone is, tragically, "presenting themselves as a victim". That happens less often I believe with men.
But then I have no stats on anything.
I suspect getting stats on attacks by strangers would be quite hard - and that's what we're interested in.
Let me ask a difficult question: Do you think black men are more safe on the street than white men?
They are in very great danger of getting stopped by the police. As for otherwise no idea there are too many factors.
I also think the idea of bringing in senior officers who are not police is a good one. The greasy pole appears to well and truly in place within the police forces, and fresh blood - and fresh eyes - at the top could be positive.
All good stuff Mr Jessop, but I want to highlight this bit. One person who never gets mentioned is Tom Winsor:
A close friend of mine is a police officer and he has zero respect for Winsor on the grounds that he has no idea what it's like to be a cop.
I think an outside perspective is always helpful, but imposing non-police management on the rank and file could lead to outright revolt.
Being a policeman is a horrible, difficult job. You put yourself in harms way every day, dealing with criminals, the insane, and event the drunken public.
Your every action is scrutinised. If you slip up, it's front page news. You have to jump through 1,000 hoops to put even the most obviously guilty man behind bars.
If I was a policeman, I'd probably feel the world was against me.
The problem is that this kind of situation results in people putting loyalty to the group ahead of loyalty to the truth, or to what is morally right. If you see a colleague being attacked in the press, you rush to defend him. The union stands up to defend him. And senior officers follow suit.
Because it's a difficult job, and people on the outside can't understand.
Unfortunately, when you put your critical faculties away, and elevate loyalty to the group above all, well, that's when terrible shit happens. Otherwise good people cover up terrible atrocities, because they don't want to do *their* group down.
It's exactly the same kind of mentality that results in so many moderate Muslims defending terrorists. Terrorist who - it should be noted - would feel no compunction about murdering said moderate.
@Cyclefree is right. Those who exercise power over their fellow citizens need to be held to higher standards. Yes, we need to be aware that people are in shitty situations, and will sometimes react poorly. But we cannot have a situation where policemen attempt to fit up members of the cabinet, or who perjure themselves to bring prosecutions against innocent people (whose lives seem far more scarred than those of the police), or who look out for a colleague jokingly called "rapist".
I've had few interactions with the police, but I've always found them to be extremely courteous even when I was nabbed for speeding on the M1. I find their patience with the cretins they have to deal with, often deliberately baiting them that they have to deal with on a daily basis absolutely fucking remarkable - with the likes of the M1 blockers they can't win either - ripping their glued hands off the M1 would probably land them in trouble even though I'd be sorely tempted to if I was an officer. Now I may be inclined to be supportive of the police than most due to my family history, but I think the average officer would probably want to see Couzens hang for his actions.
@Ydoethur point that a police officer should have to pass at least the same checks as a teacher is a good one.
Yep, there are many good police and that should not be forgotten.* Of course, weeding out the bad ones and improving the culture will only be a good thing for the good officers. They won't have to work with shits (well, only the public...) and will be held in greater regard.
*Recent experience, in London we walked past an XR protest. Lots of police mingling with protestors, chatting, very low key. Saw one person getting arrested, also low key. A couple of officers stopped to say hello to my son (ovehearing him pointing out all the police and police vans to us) and complimented him on his superhero t-shirt and his XR sticker (of which he was very proud, having been given it on the way past by a protestor).
The Police do not seem to accept there is a systemic problem. Their view seems to be this is one bad apple.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
Mornjing all: Stephen Bush in the Staggers email this am (so maybe an article later?):
"To use a mundane example: the New Statesman doesn't have an expenses policy because we are all of us incipient fraudsters, but because some people in this world are, and therefore businesses need to protect themselves and others. The Metropolitan Police's safeguarding procedures have clearly failed in this instance [...] .
To use another mundane example: in any given year, half a dozen headteachers will have to resign their posts in the wake of a bad Ofsted. That's the cost of leadership: that's part of setting standards and demonstrating that there are consequences to failure. There are a number of instances where Dick ought to have shown that leadership, and her failure to resign has by this point in of itself a reason she should resign.
The only reason to disagree, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the policing minister, the leader of the opposition and the Mayor of London all appear to, is if you think that none of the 50 chief constables in the United Kingdom could do a better job than the Metropolitan Police's current incumbent. Frankly a cursory glance at the ratings given out by the Inspectorate ought to disabuse anyone of that notion. And that's the real scandal of Dick's survival: that the political class doesn't really believe that you can have such a thing as excellence in policing, and that this is as good as it gets."
I also think the idea of bringing in senior officers who are not police is a good one. The greasy pole appears to well and truly in place within the police forces, and fresh blood - and fresh eyes - at the top could be positive.
All good stuff Mr Jessop, but I want to highlight this bit. One person who never gets mentioned is Tom Winsor:
A close friend of mine is a police officer and he has zero respect for Winsor on the grounds that he has no idea what it's like to be a cop.
I think an outside perspective is always helpful, but imposing non-police management on the rank and file could lead to outright revolt.
Being a policeman is a horrible, difficult job. You put yourself in harms way every day, dealing with criminals, the insane, and event the drunken public.
Your every action is scrutinised. If you slip up, it's front page news. You have to jump through 1,000 hoops to put even the most obviously guilty man behind bars.
If I was a policeman, I'd probably feel the world was against me.
The problem is that this kind of situation results in people putting loyalty to the group ahead of loyalty to the truth, or to what is morally right. If you see a colleague being attacked in the press, you rush to defend him. The union stands up to defend him. And senior officers follow suit.
Because it's a difficult job, and people on the outside can't understand.
Unfortunately, when you put your critical faculties away, and elevate loyalty to the group above all, well, that's when terrible shit happens. Otherwise good people cover up terrible atrocities, because they don't want to do *their* group down.
It's exactly the same kind of mentality that results in so many moderate Muslims defending terrorists. Terrorist who - it should be noted - would feel no compunction about murdering said moderate.
@Cyclefree is right. Those who exercise power over their fellow citizens need to be held to higher standards. Yes, we need to be aware that people are in shitty situations, and will sometimes react poorly. But we cannot have a situation where policemen attempt to fit up members of the cabinet, or who perjure themselves to bring prosecutions against innocent people (whose lives seem far more scarred than those of the police), or who look out for a colleague jokingly called "rapist".
I've had few interactions with the police, but I've always found them to be extremely courteous even when I was nabbed for speeding on the M1. I find their patience with the cretins they have to deal with, often deliberately baiting them that they have to deal with on a daily basis absolutely fucking remarkable - with the likes of the M1 blockers they can't win either - ripping their glued hands off the M1 would probably land them in trouble even though I'd be sorely tempted to if I was an officer. Now I may be inclined to be supportive of the police than most due to my family history, but I think the average officer would probably want to see Couzens hang for his actions.
@Ydoethur point that a police officer should have to pass at least the same checks as a teacher is a good one.
Yep, there are many good police and that should not be forgotten.* Of course, weeding out the bad ones and improving the culture will only be a good thing for the good officers. They won't have to work with shits (well, only the public...) and will be held in greater regard.
*Recent experience, in London we walked past an XR protest. Lots of police mingling with protestors, chatting, very low key. Saw one person getting arrested, also low key. A couple of officers stopped to say hello to my son (ovehearing him pointing out all the police and police vans to us) and complimented him on his superhero t-shirt and his XR sticker (of which he was very proud, having been given it on the way past by a protestor).
The Police do not seem to accept there is a systemic problem. Their view seems to be this is one bad apple.
It is far deeper than that.
Yes, of course. But fixing that would still be good for everyone, including the police.
I do think there are plenty of people in the police who should not be.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
Mr. Battery, catcalling as a hate crime seems over the top. Couzens didn't catcall or wolf whistle.
The Met needs massive reform. Dick should go. Neither of these things will happen.
Catcalling may be made illegal. It won't reduce the number of rapes. Rapists tend to either plan things carefully or be opportunists. Neither involves calling attention to oneself.
I thing the point Morris_Dancer is that cat-calling is part and parcel of a sub-culture within the UK population that tolerates the mistreatment of women & treats them as objects to be interacted with for the pleasure of the man in question, not as actual people.
The experience of cat-calling is completely different for men and women - the men that do it think that it’s harmless banter, but for many women it’s an implied threat: “be nice about me making sexual comments about you, or maybe I’ll come after you” is the message they hear loud & clear. To be oblivious to this reality is do deny the humanity of half the planet - to say that it’s OK for women to have to grin & bear this stuff whether they like it or not.
We know that Couzens was part of a WhatsApp group with other police officers where they shared misogynistic messages with each other & that he committed other offences before he was caught. When he was younger he had a relationship with a 14 year old girl.
Yet, if any of these things had been used as justification for sacking him before the horrific events of last year, you can bet that the usual subjects would be out defending these actions: The WhatsApp group would be “just banter”, the sex offences would be “just stress” & he’d be given a minor slap on the wrist & back at work in no time, the relationship would have been her fault somehow & not his. And so on and on and on.
Cat-calling is seen a part of this culture of tolerance of low level abuse of women that convinces people like Couzens that their actions are in some way supported by the society around them - that everyone would do these things if they thought they could get away with them. That’s why it’s being called out alongside everything else.
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
Time for England to follow Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, the United States and many other countries and establish an English national police force.
They could call them the Antediluvian Imperial Bobbys, to keep JRM happy. Bung a plc on the end and the Tory snouts will love the new trough.
You do know that the US has about as many police forces as Scotland has police officers, don’t you?
Slightly more according to Wikipedia, at a mere 18,000 federal, state, county, and city departments. Genuinely a bonkers way to orgranise law enforcement.
The recent Green results in council elections are very interesting. I sense they are in the process of joining the Lib Dems in building up a pretty handy presence in local government despite being virtually non-existent at Westminster. That would then give them better funding and a local activist base to fight in parliamentary seats.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
I have found the actual numbers
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
Idle google of the candidates yielded this for the Green candidate:
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
I have found the actual numbers
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
Yes, I hear the RO refused a full recount but there was a bundle check.
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
Young men are more at risk of physical assault than young women.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
There was a suggestion yesterday that come the GE in 24 lib dem and green voters will migrate back to labour but I see no evidence of this and think it is wishful thinking
I would suggest we are seeing a reduction in conservative support, labour struggling but both the lib dems and greens strengthening their appeal
I expect this to continue and labour to struggle in the red wall and make no impact in Scotland, while the lib dems cause quite some difficulty in the blue wall seats
Very interesting times and I expect in GE 24 the conservatoires to lose a good number of seats and emerge with a greatly reduced majority
However, we cannot predict more than a few weeks at present so who knows about GE24, it is also discussed with a considerable amount of understandable partisanship
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
I have found the actual numbers
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
Idle google of the candidates yielded this for the Green candidate:
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
Being a cop isn't in the guidelines. Perhaps the judge took the view that the safest way to make sure this doesn't get overturned was to liken his actions to terrorism (see below). Personally, I'm a little bit sceptical of the damage done to the police by this. As much as I think the police have serious problems, I think most people will continue to treat the police as they did before.
Couzens should be serving a whole life sentence for what he did to Sarah Everard. Her suffering - and the suffering of her friends and family - far outweighs any lasting impact on our relationship with the police.
All of these situations attack different aspects of the fundamental underpinnings of our democratic way of life. It is this vital factor which in my view makes the seriousness of this case exceptionally high. Self-evidently, it would need for the police officer to have used his role as a constable in a critical way to facilitate the commission of the offence; if his professional occupation was of little or no relevance to the offending, then these considerations clearly would not apply.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
I have found the actual numbers
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
Labour do appear to be in real trouble in the North East. Trending away at an increasing rate outside the urban centres. Certainly, anyone familiar with Hetton-le-Hole will know that it's traditional Labour par excellence.
Easington Lane which is adjacent to Hetton used to be notorious for the number of stolen cars that ended up there - supposedly the Police were rather nervous of going in as their panda cars might be subject to a stoning. So 'twas said, anyway.
From sunny uplands to a 300 million pound loss ! UK fisheries have been screwed by Bozo’s deal . All those pushing Leave seem to have forgotten you need a market to sell your fish to .
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
The Lib Dem figure is incorrect, the LDs did stand previously and received 2.2%. The Lib Dem candidate has been attempting to become a councillor since 1973.
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
I have found the actual numbers
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
Yes, I hear the RO refused a full recount but there was a bundle check.
2021
Lab 1,258 44.7% IND (Geddis) 554 19.7% Con 545 19.4% UKIP 313 11.1% Green 81 2.8% LD 63 2.2%
2814 votes
LAB: 31.6% (-13.1) LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-1.2) CON: 14.5% (-4.9) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-0.8)
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
Just telling it like it is. I don’t meet a lot of policemen, and the three that I have known were all unsuited to the job.
I have similarly negative experiences with most ex-servicemen. In fact, come to think of it, they’re even worse. But again, I just don’t know a lot of ex-servicemen, so the sample is useless.
From sunny uplands to a 300 million pound loss ! UK fisheries have been screwed by Bozo’s deal . All those pushing Leave seem to have forgotten you need a market to sell your fish to .
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
I wonder what actually means? You often get the news interviewing the neighbours and they say "I'd never have guessed, he seemed like such a nice bloke, etc. etc."
If they were asked to submit something formally, well, there's loyalty and then there's that.
Yep, would be interesting to know more detail. If you're called and you've only had positive experience of the man (as likely if the defence call you) then what do you say? You'd be very foolish to lie.
The defence had a job to do; the only issue was whether X would receive a whole life tariff or a life sentence with a massive minimum period. As to the offence itself there was no mitigation, and the defence didn't say there was. In doing his best counsel will have drawn attention to such elements of his previous character as would assist in making the difference between the two possible outcomes. In this endeavour he was unsuccessful; but it has to be argued out as in giving the whole life sentence that the judge (rightly IMHO) did he was to an extent breaking new ground. David Allen Green's analysis which I linked to yesterday was exactly right.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
Something like the Marriott plan from Yes, Minister?
I think Hacker ended up postponing that scheme until the 21st century, until it was pointed out that he might still be PM then. So he went for the century after that.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
So, you just skipped over Cyclefree’s article. Don’t. Go back and read it. Very carefully.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
My secretary used to be a police officer. Through her I have met plenty of others, and she has some interesting stories over some of our patients who she has met in a professional capacity. Generally they are a good bunch, though one or two were rather dangerous.
I think the good cops generally know who the bad ones are, just as in my profession we know who are the good doctors. The difficulty in this canteen level knowledge is being able to translate it into action. The level of proof required just isn't there. Ditto school teachers, clerics, military personnel, lawyers, politicians etc etc.
Rooting out the bad apples is not an easy nor risk free task, and changing a culture requires that whistle-blowing is different to poison pen vendetta. The problem of the Investigator, and I have been in that role, is that level of evidence required, but for justice that level is rightly high.
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
I don't think he made an "exception" - what he did was to look at the guidelines, which give some *examples* of exceptional circumstances, and reason why this was also an exceptional circumstance.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
Or, alternatively, maybe local councillors would choose MPs who they consider most likely to act in the best interests of local councillors.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
Something like the Marriott plan from Yes, Minister?
I think Hacker ended up postponing that scheme until the 21st century, until it was pointed out that he might still be PM then. So he went for the century after that.
We are discussing the police, where everyone starts at the bottom.
From sunny uplands to a 300 million pound loss ! UK fisheries have been screwed by Bozo’s deal . All those pushing Leave seem to have forgotten you need a market to sell your fish to .
Post-cognitive dissonance is settling in nicely.
Not on here. PB Tory Spartans still going strong.
Meanwhile, some analysts are noting that the pound is acting like an emerging market currency.
The market seems to be worried about a policy mistake. Monetary and fiscal policy is set to tighten, and the higher energy prices, in this context, are like another consumption tax. Part of the energy shortage in the UK is also idiosyncratic and related to structural conditions of the labor market on this side of Brexit. Meanwhile, it [is] antagonizing Europe by granting only 12 of 47 applications for fishing licenses, and the debate over the Northern Ireland protocols appears to be intensifying.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
It’s all Darwinism. Young men are competing for the same scant resources: nubile young women. So they fight and attack each other. As a middle aged man you are not seen as sexual competition so you are ignored, there is nothing to be gained from attacking you (unless they want to rob you), yet there is also risk: you might be powerful or rich and able to summon more resources in revenge.
Middle aged men are literally safer. As are middle aged women, btw
The median age for rape complainants is close to the age of peak female fertility: early 20s
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
I don't think he made an "exception" - what he did was to look at the guidelines, which give some *examples* of exceptional circumstances, and reason why this was also an exceptional circumstance.
I suspect that's the problem. If Couzens hadn't been a police officer, then it perhaps, sadly, wouldn't have been exceptional enough.
Whole life sentences shouldn't be rationed like firsts at university.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
I have proposed in the past that we abolish the Lords and replace it with a Senate, made up of local councillors selected by their peers, pro rata to population.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
Or, alternatively, maybe local councillors would choose MPs who they consider most likely to act in the best interests of local councillors.
That's where democracy steps in. Those councillors are accountable to their electorate for the MP's actions, rather than just the state of bin collections or potholes. If they select a crap MP then they'll lose their council seats.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
In truth I knew the late Gordon Anglesey and socialised with him along with others
He was a Rotarian, in round table and of course the masons, and used to preach to the local church on Sundays
This is his story as he sued 4 media organisations and received £375,000 in damages in 1994 and was finally jailed in 2016
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
There was a suggestion yesterday that come the GE in 24 lib dem and green voters will migrate back to labour but I see no evidence of this and think it is wishful thinking
I would suggest we are seeing a reduction in conservative support, labour struggling but both the lib dems and greens strengthening their appeal
I expect this to continue and labour to struggle in the red wall and make no impact in Scotland, while the lib dems cause quite some difficulty in the blue wall seats
Very interesting times and I expect in GE 24 the conservatoires to lose a good number of seats and emerge with a greatly reduced majority
However, we cannot predict more than a few weeks at present so who knows about GE24, it is also discussed with a considerable amount of understandable partisanship
The bajillion dollar question is how the anti-Conservative votes end up being distributed.
Labour won't mind doing badly in East Hampshire- like C+A, they're vanishingly unlikely to win there, so if their voters go elsewhere in enough numbers to seriously harm the Conservatives, that's fine.
But they do need to be doing well somewhere, and it's not obvious that they are at the moment.
But the next election (presumably GE23 if the Conservatives are confident of winning, GE24 if they are on course to lose) is going to depend on events. Of which there will be plenty.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
I have proposed in the past that we abolish the Lords and replace it with a Senate, made up of local councillors selected by their peers, pro rata to population.
French Senators are partly elected by local councillors
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
It’s all Darwinism. Young men are competing for the same scant resources: nubile young women. So they fight and attack each other. As a middle aged man you are not seen as sexual competition so you are ignored, there is nothing to be gained from attacking you (unless they want to rob you), yet there is also risk: you might be powerful or rich and able to summon more resources in revenge.
Middle aged men are literally safer. As are middle aged women, btw
The median age for rape complainants is close to the age of peak female fertility: early 20s
Rather dangerously like Andrea Dworkin's thesis in her books that all men are (potential) rapists.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
One recalls the way in which the BMA tried to disrupt the investigation into a doctor with a remarkable number of deceased elderly patients and associated inheritances (not Shipman: a much earlier incident; the doctor in question went to trial but was acquitted and is now deceased).
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
My secretary used to be a police officer. Through her I have met plenty of others, and she has some interesting stories over some of our patients who she has met in a professional capacity. Generally they are a good bunch, though one or two were rather dangerous.
I think the good cops generally know who the bad ones are, just as in my profession we know who are the good doctors. The difficulty in this canteen level knowledge is being able to translate it into action. The level of proof required just isn't there. Ditto school teachers, clerics, military personnel, lawyers, politicians etc etc.
Rooting out the bad apples is not an easy nor risk free task, and changing a culture requires that whistle-blowing is different to poison pen vendetta. The problem of the Investigator, and I have been in that role, is that level of evidence required, but for justice that level is rightly high.
Senior management have to be interested in the whistle-blowing. Most are not. It is just another fire they have to fight, and the easiest option is to snuff out the whistle-blower and not the problem.
Great header but listening to Priti Patel I sense neither desire nor capacity to get a grip on any of this. She seems to just mouth words at random rather than use them to express a train of thought.
Great header but listening to Priti Patel I sense neither desire nor capacity to get a grip on any of this. She seems to just mouth words at random rather than use them to a express a train of thought.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
So, you just skipped over Cyclefree’s article. Don’t. Go back and read it. Very carefully.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
You attack the police service by referring to just 3 police officers you have known and draw in your anti English bias.
And as far as @Cyclefree article is concerned I agree with all of it
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
I don't think he made an "exception" - what he did was to look at the guidelines, which give some *examples* of exceptional circumstances, and reason why this was also an exceptional circumstance.
I suspect that's the problem. If Couzens hadn't been a police officer, then it perhaps, sadly, wouldn't have been exceptional enough.
Whole life sentences shouldn't be rationed like firsts at university.
Yes, they should. And I speak as someone who called for Couzens to get exactly this sentence yesterday.
What Couzens will experience is as close the British judicial system gets to a death sentence. No chance of release, no possibility of redemption, the rest of his entire life in something close to solitary confinement, constantly at risk of attack from others. As an ex con says in the Times today (££) ‘he may wish he’d got a death sentence instead’
This cruel punishment is necessary for multiple reasons, not least deterrence. Any other rotten copper fancying a bit of rape and murder needs to know that, if caught, they will be hurled into a dungeon until they die
Other murders are different, and deserve different life sentences. 20-30 years in prison is still enough to break someone into pieces, vanishingly few people re-offend after a life sentence like that, yet the release at the end offers the chance of redemption and remorse, and maybe repayment to society
What I do object to are the ‘life sentences’ that turn out to be 12 years or whatever, but I’m not sure they’re that common?
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
The problem with that is voters often vote differently for local and national elections, eg in Epping plenty of voters vote LD locally but Conservative nationally.
If councillors are elected by FPTP on your system there would also not be a real change to PR nationally.
Plus plenty of MPs have already been elected as councillors at some stage before getting elected to Parliament already .
Indeed Ben Bradley is now leader of Nottinghamshire county council as well as MP for Mansfield
LAB: 31.6% (-1.7) LDEM: 30.3% (+30.3) IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-3.1) CON: 14.5% (+8.8) IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2) GRN: 2.0% (-1.8)
Looks like one of those anomalies where a party with reasonable local support (this time the LDs) for some reason didn't stand last time. Looking at the maths there must have been a popular independent getting around 35% last time round as there are total increases of 42.3% and decreases of 6.6%.
There was a suggestion yesterday that come the GE in 24 lib dem and green voters will migrate back to labour but I see no evidence of this and think it is wishful thinking
I would suggest we are seeing a reduction in conservative support, labour struggling but both the lib dems and greens strengthening their appeal
I expect this to continue and labour to struggle in the red wall and make no impact in Scotland, while the lib dems cause quite some difficulty in the blue wall seats
Very interesting times and I expect in GE 24 the conservatoires to lose a good number of seats and emerge with a greatly reduced majority
However, we cannot predict more than a few weeks at present so who knows about GE24, it is also discussed with a considerable amount of understandable partisanship
The bajillion dollar question is how the anti-Conservative votes end up being distributed.
Labour won't mind doing badly in East Hampshire- like C+A, they're vanishingly unlikely to win there, so if their voters go elsewhere in enough numbers to seriously harm the Conservatives, that's fine.
But they do need to be doing well somewhere, and it's not obvious that they are at the moment.
But the next election (presumably GE23 if the Conservatives are confident of winning, GE24 if they are on course to lose) is going to depend on events. Of which there will be plenty.
Independent is often someone who left party X over matter Y. So it is not uncommon for them to "go home" and get re-elected under their old banner.....
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
So, you just skipped over Cyclefree’s article. Don’t. Go back and read it. Very carefully.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
You attack the police service by referring to just 3 police officers you have known and draw in your anti English bias.
And as far as @Cyclefree article is concerned I agree with all of it
Hmm, English policemens' anti-Irish bias was actually quite different from Scottish policemens' anti-Irish bias, in not being sectarian (Liverpool etc apart). So it's not anti-English to note that X was plain racist as opposed to racist + sectarian.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
One recalls the way in which the BMA tried to disrupt the investigation into a doctor with a remarkable number of deceased elderly patients and associated inheritances (not Shipman: a much earlier incident; the doctor in question went to trial but was acquitted and is now deceased).
John Bodkin Adams or one between him and Shipman? In any case, surely it is the BMA's job to defend its members? The BMA is not the General Medical Council (GMC) which, btw, is conducting a review. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
From sunny uplands to a 300 million pound loss ! UK fisheries have been screwed by Bozo’s deal . All those pushing Leave seem to have forgotten you need a market to sell your fish to .
Maybe the fisher folk could retrain as HGV drivers. A fishing boat is kind of like an HGV, but with no wheels. And in the water. I'm surprised the government aren't all over this obvious solution to our current difficulties already.
Of course looking at his case history Fulford has had more than his fair share of dealing with corrupt coppers. I wonder what the system/criteria were for appointment to this particular case.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
But if you are not careful you run out of volunteers, which iirc has in the past hamstrung investigations into armed police.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
So, you just skipped over Cyclefree’s article. Don’t. Go back and read it. Very carefully.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
You attack the police service by referring to just 3 police officers you have known and draw in your anti English bias.
And as far as @Cyclefree article is concerned I agree with all of it
I did not attack the police service. I said I only knew three people who worked as police and that none of the three were appropriate for the job. I can’t change facts.
Anti-English bias? What on earth are you on about? The anti-Irish racist in question was a Scot working for a large English metropolis in the 1970s, when the IRA was a big thing and being a racist was a bog-standard feature of English society.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
One recalls the way in which the BMA tried to disrupt the investigation into a doctor with a remarkable number of deceased elderly patients and associated inheritances (not Shipman: a much earlier incident; the doctor in question went to trial but was acquitted and is now deceased).
John Bodkin Adams or one between him and Shipman? In any case, surely it is the BMA's job to defend its members? The BMA is not the General Medical Council (GMC) which, btw, is conducting a review. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
Yep, Bodkin Adams. It was seemingly not as simple as that if wiki is right (too long since I read an account of the case to offer any comment myself).
'On 24 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) sent a letter to all doctors in Eastbourne reminding them of "Professional Secrecy" (i.e., patient confidentiality) if interviewed by the police.[42] The police were frustrated by this move, although some local doctors ignored it and gave statements relating either to deceased patients or, in one instance, one that was alive.[43] The action of the BMA was part of a concerted attempt by it to secure better terms for its members, whose pay had remained virtually static since the National Health Service had been set up in 1948:[44] this action later led to talk of an all-out strike.[45]
The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (who customarily prosecuted cases of poisoning or delegated it to the Solicitor General),[46][47] wrote to the BMA secretary, Angus Macrae, "to try to get him to remove the ban".[42] The impasse continued until on 8 November Manningham-Buller met Macrae to convince him of the importance of the case. During this meeting, in a highly unusual move, he passed Hannam's confidential 187-page report on Adams to Macrae. His intention was to convince the BMA of the seriousness of the accusations and for the need to obtain cooperation from local doctors.[48] Macrae took the report to the President of the BMA and returned it the next day. Convinced of the seriousness of the accusations, Macrae dropped his opposition to doctors talking to the police.[49]
It has been speculated that Macrae also copied the report and passed it on to the defence,[50] and conspiracy theorists have claimed that Manningham-Buller did so with the intention of assisting the defence case, but there is no evidence of this.[51] However, the incident does call Manningham-Buller's competence into question, and he was strongly criticised at the time.[ii]
On 28 November 1956, opposition Labour Party MPs Stephen Swingler and Hugh Delargy gave notice of two questions to be asked in the House of Commons regarding the affair, one asking what "reports [the Attorney-General] has sent" to the General Medical Council (GMC) in the "past six months".[53] Manningham-Buller replied that he had "had no communications" with the GMC, but only with an officer of it. He did not mention the report.[53] Instead, he instigated an investigation into a leak,[53] later concluding that Hannam himself[50] had passed information regarding the meeting with Macrae to a journalist, probably Rodney Hallworth of the Daily Mail.[54]'
Good morning. I see the economic news isn't as rosy as it was a month or so ago. And the Greens won a seat in Hampshire. I believe their first above town or parish level. The wonderfully appropriately named Blossom Gottlieb no less.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
It’s all Darwinism. Young men are competing for the same scant resources: nubile young women. So they fight and attack each other. As a middle aged man you are not seen as sexual competition so you are ignored, there is nothing to be gained from attacking you (unless they want to rob you), yet there is also risk: you might be powerful or rich and able to summon more resources in revenge.
Middle aged men are literally safer. As are middle aged women, btw
The median age for rape complainants is close to the age of peak female fertility: early 20s
Rather dangerously like Andrea Dworkin's thesis in her books that all men are (potential) rapists.
Never had you down as such a woke feminist.
Ironically, Dworkin went mad at the end and started fabricating fake rape attacks on herself. Quite a sad life
There are several films set in the US, I saw one the other day but can't remember the name of it, where the baddies are being chased by State police and it's a race to the State border after which the baddies continue unhindered and the State police (usually in the films) get out of their cars at the border line, put their hands on their hips, and stare wistfully after their disappearing prey.
Fun fact: Sparta, Mississippi, where In the Heat of the Night is set is actually 130 miles away from the state line with Arkansas. The bridge featured is actually in Sparta, Illinois, where the picture was filmed. That is indeed on the state line over the Mississipi River, albeit across the water from Missouri, not Arkansas.
Council elections are fascinating, and local government deserves more attention and more respect.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
The problem with that is voters often vote differently for local and national elections, eg in Epping plenty of voters vote LD locally but Conservative nationally.
If councillors are elected by FPTP on your system there would also not be a real change to PR nationally.
Plus plenty of MPs have already been elected as councillors at some stage before getting elected to Parliament already .
Indeed Ben Bradley is now leader of Nottinghamshire county council as well as MP for Mansfield
Mmmm. That closes off the avenue of MP blaming the Council, Council blaming the MP.
@CorrectHorseBattery - not that I want to deter you from enjoying the outdoors, but you're probably just as likely to be attacked as a woman.
Not sure what the stats say but I sense there is a big difference in risk between men in their teens and early 20s on the one hand, and those of us in our middle age who certainly seem to be at very little risk after dark. I remember being incredibly nervous walking around dark or empty areas when I was about 18 or 19 because so many of my friends had been mugged or beaten up by groups of yobs (I never got worse than threats of attack and legging it out of danger). Now in my mid 40s the youths just seem to look straight through me. Whereas I think women my age still get a lot of the aggro.
That's an interesting point. You'd think being young should make you safer (fitter, faster, etc.). But I'm inclined to think you're probably right. Youngsters tend to gob off at other youngsters or, at least, seem less scared of them.
It’s all Darwinism. Young men are competing for the same scant resources: nubile young women. So they fight and attack each other. As a middle aged man you are not seen as sexual competition so you are ignored, there is nothing to be gained from attacking you (unless they want to rob you), yet there is also risk: you might be powerful or rich and able to summon more resources in revenge.
Middle aged men are literally safer. As are middle aged women, btw
The median age for rape complainants is close to the age of peak female fertility: early 20s
Rather dangerously like Andrea Dworkin's thesis in her books that all men are (potential) rapists.
Never had you down as such a woke feminist.
Ironically, Dworkin went mad at the end and started fabricating fake rape attacks on herself. Quite a sad life
From sunny uplands to a 300 million pound loss ! UK fisheries have been screwed by Bozo’s deal . All those pushing Leave seem to have forgotten you need a market to sell your fish to .
Maybe the fisher folk could retrain as HGV drivers. A fishing boat is kind of like an HGV, but with no wheels. And in the water. I'm surprised the government aren't all over this obvious solution to our current difficulties already.
Ballet dancers who can'rt cope with coding surely more appropriate. It's not as if ballet was the reason for Brexit in the first place.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
One recalls the way in which the BMA tried to disrupt the investigation into a doctor with a remarkable number of deceased elderly patients and associated inheritances (not Shipman: a much earlier incident; the doctor in question went to trial but was acquitted and is now deceased).
John Bodkin Adams or one between him and Shipman? In any case, surely it is the BMA's job to defend its members? The BMA is not the General Medical Council (GMC) which, btw, is conducting a review. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
Yep, Bodkin Adams. It was seemingly not as simple as that if wiki is right (too long since I read an account of the case to offer any comment myself).
'On 24 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) sent a letter to all doctors in Eastbourne reminding them of "Professional Secrecy" (i.e., patient confidentiality) if interviewed by the police.[42] The police were frustrated by this move, although some local doctors ignored it and gave statements relating either to deceased patients or, in one instance, one that was alive.[43] The action of the BMA was part of a concerted attempt by it to secure better terms for its members, whose pay had remained virtually static since the National Health Service had been set up in 1948:[44] this action later led to talk of an all-out strike.[45]
The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (who customarily prosecuted cases of poisoning or delegated it to the Solicitor General),[46][47] wrote to the BMA secretary, Angus Macrae, "to try to get him to remove the ban".[42] The impasse continued until on 8 November Manningham-Buller met Macrae to convince him of the importance of the case. During this meeting, in a highly unusual move, he passed Hannam's confidential 187-page report on Adams to Macrae. His intention was to convince the BMA of the seriousness of the accusations and for the need to obtain cooperation from local doctors.[48] Macrae took the report to the President of the BMA and returned it the next day. Convinced of the seriousness of the accusations, Macrae dropped his opposition to doctors talking to the police.[49]
It has been speculated that Macrae also copied the report and passed it on to the defence,[50] and conspiracy theorists have claimed that Manningham-Buller did so with the intention of assisting the defence case, but there is no evidence of this.[51] However, the incident does call Manningham-Buller's competence into question, and he was strongly criticised at the time.[ii]
On 28 November 1956, opposition Labour Party MPs Stephen Swingler and Hugh Delargy gave notice of two questions to be asked in the House of Commons regarding the affair, one asking what "reports [the Attorney-General] has sent" to the General Medical Council (GMC) in the "past six months".[53] Manningham-Buller replied that he had "had no communications" with the GMC, but only with an officer of it. He did not mention the report.[53] Instead, he instigated an investigation into a leak,[53] later concluding that Hannam himself[50] had passed information regarding the meeting with Macrae to a journalist, probably Rodney Hallworth of the Daily Mail.[54]'
Yes, I have Jane Robins' book on Bodkin Adams, though tbh I can't honestly remember if I'd recommend it.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
So, you just skipped over Cyclefree’s article. Don’t. Go back and read it. Very carefully.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
You attack the police service by referring to just 3 police officers you have known and draw in your anti English bias.
And as far as @Cyclefree article is concerned I agree with all of it
I did not attack the police service. I said I only knew three people who worked as police and that none of the three were appropriate for the job. I can’t change facts.
Anti-English bias? What on earth are you on about? The anti-Irish racist in question was a Scot working for a large English metropolis in the 1970s, when the IRA was a big thing and being a racist was a bog-standard feature of English society.
In the 70s it was there by default.
Even in the early 1990s Mrs Eek's dad (a BTP policeman) had to doublecheck it was OK for her to visit Belfast to see Uni friends.
Great header but listening to Priti Patel I sense neither desire nor capacity to get a grip on any of this. She seems to just mouth words at random rather than use them to express a train of thought.
Pritler is only in position because she is popular (for some unknowable reason) with the gammon tendency of the tory party membership not for any reasons of acumen or capability.
Independent is often someone who left party X over matter Y. So it is not uncommon for them to "go home" and get re-elected under their old banner.....
Perhaps that is what happened here?
Apparently not according to Andrew Teale's reviews. The late councillor, John Smith, appears to have been a genuine, "local champion" type. Indeed, the fact the Conservatives stood against him last time whereas Labour and Lib Dems didn't, rather suggests he wasn't viewed as a Condependent.
I suspect the real story here is simpler - Conservative elected in a strongly Conservative area when a popular independent goes (and similar things happen in strongly Labour or Lib Dem areas when that happens).
Great header but listening to Priti Patel I sense neither desire nor capacity to get a grip on any of this. She seems to just mouth words at random rather than use them to express a train of thought.
You mean she is a Tory MP?
They do have plenty like that, esp some of those ERG Bridgen types, people who struggle to understand anything beyond quite simple matters, but thankfully most of them are tucked up out of harms way. This one, for our sins, is the Home Secretary.
I can only think of three people I know who worked as police.
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I was a police officer in Edinburgh in 1964 and your characterisation of police officers is unacceptable and unhelpful
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time not and your views are abhorrent
This is the problem with Police thinking, it is just a few bad apples.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I do not disagree and I did not say a few
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
I've known a few coppers. Some decent people, some not so good. My brother in law is one and he is fine.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Yes, I think there is a problem that professions have a habit of closing ranks when individuals are subject to criticism. The medical profession used to be notorious for this - perhaps, still is. Needs very strong leadership of the type Cyclefree describes to break down that culture and, also, strong third-party governance.
One recalls the way in which the BMA tried to disrupt the investigation into a doctor with a remarkable number of deceased elderly patients and associated inheritances (not Shipman: a much earlier incident; the doctor in question went to trial but was acquitted and is now deceased).
John Bodkin Adams or one between him and Shipman? In any case, surely it is the BMA's job to defend its members? The BMA is not the General Medical Council (GMC) which, btw, is conducting a review. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
Yep, Bodkin Adams. It was seemingly not as simple as that if wiki is right (too long since I read an account of the case to offer any comment myself).
'On 24 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) sent a letter to all doctors in Eastbourne reminding them of "Professional Secrecy" (i.e., patient confidentiality) if interviewed by the police.[42] The police were frustrated by this move, although some local doctors ignored it and gave statements relating either to deceased patients or, in one instance, one that was alive.[43] The action of the BMA was part of a concerted attempt by it to secure better terms for its members, whose pay had remained virtually static since the National Health Service had been set up in 1948:[44] this action later led to talk of an all-out strike.[45]
The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (who customarily prosecuted cases of poisoning or delegated it to the Solicitor General),[46][47] wrote to the BMA secretary, Angus Macrae, "to try to get him to remove the ban".[42] The impasse continued until on 8 November Manningham-Buller met Macrae to convince him of the importance of the case. During this meeting, in a highly unusual move, he passed Hannam's confidential 187-page report on Adams to Macrae. His intention was to convince the BMA of the seriousness of the accusations and for the need to obtain cooperation from local doctors.[48] Macrae took the report to the President of the BMA and returned it the next day. Convinced of the seriousness of the accusations, Macrae dropped his opposition to doctors talking to the police.[49]
It has been speculated that Macrae also copied the report and passed it on to the defence,[50] and conspiracy theorists have claimed that Manningham-Buller did so with the intention of assisting the defence case, but there is no evidence of this.[51] However, the incident does call Manningham-Buller's competence into question, and he was strongly criticised at the time.[ii]
On 28 November 1956, opposition Labour Party MPs Stephen Swingler and Hugh Delargy gave notice of two questions to be asked in the House of Commons regarding the affair, one asking what "reports [the Attorney-General] has sent" to the General Medical Council (GMC) in the "past six months".[53] Manningham-Buller replied that he had "had no communications" with the GMC, but only with an officer of it. He did not mention the report.[53] Instead, he instigated an investigation into a leak,[53] later concluding that Hannam himself[50] had passed information regarding the meeting with Macrae to a journalist, probably Rodney Hallworth of the Daily Mail.[54]'
Yes, I have Jane Robins' book on Bodkin Adams, though tbh I can't honestly remember if I'd recommend it.
For me, the problem is not so much the shocking revelations of this case, it is the mindset of an institution, and indeed a political class, that thought Cressida Dick was even a credible candidate for the position of Head of the Met in the first place. From the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes, the jaw dropping incompetence in Operation Midland and the blatant and identified obstruction of the Morgan inquiry it is painfully obvious that she should have been sacked long before she made the top chair. Is it really any surprise that the incompetence, genuinely weird political misjudgements (Extinction rebellion and the handling of the Sarah Everard commemoration to name just 2 examples) have continued?
Was the fact that she was a woman and gay more important to our right on politicians? I mean, for god's sake. The decision to renew her contract not even a month ago with this pending, is one of the more inexplicable political decisions in recent times. Dick is not the only one who should be considering her position.
I'm not here to defend the Commissioner - would be very happy to see her resign. But there does appear to be a concerted campaign against her that is outsized vs the issue. Would - an example - a different commissioner have meant that this "man" would have been screened and caught out before he committed this heinous crime?
This alone would not for me be reason for her to resign. As horrendous as it is, if none of the red flags had reached her desk there's no way she could have known.
This, combined with the culture she's allowed to be in the Met, combined with the cover-up the Morgan Inquiry found, combined with de Menzies, combined with Midland . . . different story.
Yes, so we're back into the institutional culture problem. As the police (all forces) draw more of certain groups of people in than other groups there is a risk of being unbalanced. All the more reason why the leadership from the very top needs to be robust.
For me though this does feel like a bit of a blind alley. This case was so exceptional because it was that crime by a serving police officer - hence the exceptional sentence. If only the crime was an exception - it isn't. It isn't the police culture we need to change, but our own.
Until women are equal to men we will keep this horrible problem. Yes its a small minority of men, but they are fuelled by a society that amplifies their "rights" and "needs" as overriding those of others. We managed to make drink driving completely unacceptable when it used to be the norm. We can make "incel" and "phwoar" and"just a bit of fun" completely unacceptable if we try.
This won't 100% eradicate these kind of crimes because a very small number of people are unsaveable in this life. But we can shine light into the darkness.
It does concern me that Couzens may have only got a proper life sentence because he was a police officer. For sure, that's an aggravating factor, but his actions alone ought to have been more than enough to ensure that he would never be released.
Given the planning and that the attack was on a complete stranger, it seems almost certain that he would have repeated the crime if he'd not been caught.
That's an interesting point. The guidance on whole life sentences includes:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following— (i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii)the abduction of the victim, or (iii)sexual or sadistic conduct...
But as you say, he was caught after one (or, at least, one that we know of). I think it would perfectly reasonable for a judge to come to the conclusion that he would more than likely have done it again had he not been caught.
There's every chance she was not his first victim too, but that he got away with others.
What is the point of specifying two victims in the guidelines, if we are happy for the judge to infer, and pb to infer, that there were probably other victims so that's all right then? That is a dangerous path. Guilt should be proven, not assumed or asserted. The presumption of innocence is the golden thread...
Except the judge didn't. Read the sentencing remarks about how he constructed, using the law and the guidelines, the sentence. He actually sets out his though process, in quite some detail.
The point at issue was that whole life tariffs are for exceptional circumstances, with *some* examples given. The wording is quite clear that these aren't the *only* reasons for a whole life tariff.
The judge then took the view that the combination of pre-meditation, the nature of the crime, the lack of remorse and attempted cover up, combined with the level of mis-use of the public office raised the crime to the whole life tariff category.
Yes, if Couzens had got into a fight in a pub whilst off duty and ended up killing someone, or murdered his wife after a row he may well have received a life sentence but not a whole life tariff.
Yep (and thanks was it you who posted the judge's remarks) - it was in particular his use of his warrant card as a serving police officer to perpetrate the crime that was largely the reason why he received the whole life tariff.
And I think it's unfortunate that it gives the impression that he wouldn't have got a whole life sentence had he not been a cop. The nature of the crime - especially the length of time over which it was perpetrated - should have been more than enough to put him away for the rest of his life. Sure, mention him using the warrant card etc. too, but I think it's a shame that it wasn't made clear that such a crime should get the maximum sentence irrespective of who perpetrates it.
I happen to agree but them's not the guidelines so the judge had to be precise in explaining why he had made an exception. Which I believe he did.
I don't think he made an "exception" - what he did was to look at the guidelines, which give some *examples* of exceptional circumstances, and reason why this was also an exceptional circumstance.
I suspect that's the problem. If Couzens hadn't been a police officer, then it perhaps, sadly, wouldn't have been exceptional enough.
Whole life sentences shouldn't be rationed like firsts at university.
Yes, they should. And I speak as someone who called for Couzens to get exactly this sentence yesterday.
What Couzens will experience is as close the British judicial system gets to a death sentence. No chance of release, no possibility of redemption, the rest of his entire life in something close to solitary confinement, constantly at risk of attack from others. As an ex con says in the Times today (££) ‘he may wish he’d got a death sentence instead’
This cruel punishment is necessary for multiple reasons, not least deterrence. Any other rotten copper fancying a bit of rape and murder needs to know that, if caught, they will be hurled into a dungeon until they die
Other murders are different, and deserve different life sentences. 20-30 years in prison is still enough to break someone into pieces, vanishingly few people re-offend after a life sentence like that, yet the release at the end offers the chance of redemption and remorse, and maybe repayment to society
What I do object to are the ‘life sentences’ that turn out to be 12 years or whatever, but I’m not sure they’re that common?
Of course, in reality, all that happens is that the parole board gets to deal with the problem. Look at some of these individuals...
Anthony Entwistle...[redacted as it's not very nice] In 2009, Mr. Justice Davis ruled at the High Court that Entwistle could be considered for release after 25 years (less 10 months spent on remand) if he was judged to no longer be a threat to the public, rather than imposing a whole life tariff, saying that "He can only be released if ever (and it may be never) he is assessed as no longer a danger to the public." The parole board turned down his request for release in June 2013.
On investigation, it turns out the average life sentence actually served in the UK is 16.5 years. That seems a bit low to me. 20 is more imposing. But I don’t believe every murderer needs to be banged up til they croak. Couzens is an unusual case that DOES demand that
Independent is often someone who left party X over matter Y. So it is not uncommon for them to "go home" and get re-elected under their old banner.....
Perhaps that is what happened here?
Apparently not according to Andrew Teale's reviews. The late councillor, John Smith, appears to have been a genuine, "local champion" type. Indeed, the fact the Conservatives stood against him last time whereas Labour and Lib Dems didn't, rather suggests he wasn't viewed as a Condependent.
I suspect the real story here is simpler - Conservative elected in a strongly Conservative area when a popular independent goes (and similar things happen in strongly Labour or Lib Dem areas when that happens).
Ah - so a (probably) conservative Independent replaced by a Conservative?
Independent is often someone who left party X over matter Y. So it is not uncommon for them to "go home" and get re-elected under their old banner.....
Perhaps that is what happened here?
Not so. Independent, presumably mighty popular from that 61.3% vote, sadly died. Probably why only the Tories stood in competition before now. Now they aren't there it becomes a more "real" election. I live in a v similar ward. Former incumbent Tory Indy gets 70%+. No doubt would have a similar result here in absence of Indy.
Comments
Let me ask a difficult question: Do you think black men are more safe on the street than white men?
Our extended family got to hear of a child abuser in our midst about 4 decades after the sexual assault and 3 decades after the perpetrator’s death. I suspect we would never have heard about it if the victim (one of his victims?) hadn’t received counselling for an unrelated personal issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/cressida-dick-policing-female-head-metropolitan-police-women-better-officers
On a slightly connected note I hadn't realised the origins of the term filibustering, 'someone who engages in an (at least nominally) unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country or territory to foment or support a political revolution or secession'. Not the most favourable association, though it does describs much of US foreign policy for the last 150ish years.
*Recent experience, in London we walked past an XR protest. Lots of police mingling with protestors, chatting, very low key. Saw one person getting arrested, also low key. A couple of officers stopped to say hello to my son (ovehearing him pointing out all the police and police vans to us) and complimented him on his superhero t-shirt and his XR sticker (of which he was very proud, having been given it on the way past by a protestor).
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
It is far deeper than that.
"To use a mundane example: the New Statesman doesn't have an expenses policy because we are all of us incipient fraudsters, but because some people in this world are, and therefore businesses need to protect themselves and others. The Metropolitan Police's safeguarding procedures have clearly failed in this instance [...] .
To use another mundane example: in any given year, half a dozen headteachers will have to resign their posts in the wake of a bad Ofsted. That's the cost of leadership: that's part of setting standards and demonstrating that there are consequences to failure. There are a number of instances where Dick ought to have shown that leadership, and her failure to resign has by this point in of itself a reason she should resign.
The only reason to disagree, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the policing minister, the leader of the opposition and the Mayor of London all appear to, is if you think that none of the 50 chief constables in the United Kingdom could do a better job than the Metropolitan Police's current incumbent. Frankly a cursory glance at the ratings given out by the Inspectorate ought to disabuse anyone of that notion. And that's the real scandal of Dick's survival: that the political class doesn't really believe that you can have such a thing as excellence in policing, and that this is as good as it gets."
I do think there are plenty of people in the police who should not be.
Labour by just 27 votes
Iain Scott (Lab) 661
John Lennox (LDem) 634
David Geddis (Ind) 386
Adelle Burnicle (Con) 303
Maurice Allen (Ind) 67
Justine Merton-Scott (Green) 41
The experience of cat-calling is completely different for men and women - the men that do it think that it’s harmless banter, but for many women it’s an implied threat: “be nice about me making sexual comments about you, or maybe I’ll come after you” is the message they hear loud & clear. To be oblivious to this reality is do deny the humanity of half the planet - to say that it’s OK for women to have to grin & bear this stuff whether they like it or not.
We know that Couzens was part of a WhatsApp group with other police officers where they shared misogynistic messages with each other & that he committed other offences before he was caught. When he was younger he had a relationship with a 14 year old girl.
Yet, if any of these things had been used as justification for sacking him before the horrific events of last year, you can bet that the usual subjects would be out defending these actions: The WhatsApp group would be “just banter”, the sex offences would be “just stress” & he’d be given a minor slap on the wrist & back at work in no time, the relationship would have been her fault somehow & not his. And so on and on and on.
Cat-calling is seen a part of this culture of tolerance of low level abuse of women that convinces people like Couzens that their actions are in some way supported by the society around them - that everyone would do these things if they thought they could get away with them. That’s why it’s being called out alongside everything else.
Lib Dem: 287
Con: 219
Wells Ind: 152
Lab: 62
Lib Dem GAIN from Con
LD: 173 (43.5%, +2.8%)
CON: 87 (21.9%, -1.0%)
Ind: 51 (12.8%, +12.8%)
LAB: 40 (10.1%, -12.1%)
PCF: 28 (7.0%, +7.0%)
GRN: 19 (4.8%, +4.8%)
No UKIP (-14.4%) as previous.
Lib Dem GAIN from CON.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-34856541
One was a blatant racist and anti-Irish. Almost the stereotype of the big-city English policemen of that era.
Another was an alcoholic and marijuana user.
The third was an alcoholic and bipolar.
So, my voodoo poll of three says that 100% of police people are not up to the job.
I would suggest we are seeing a reduction in conservative support, labour struggling but both the lib dems and greens strengthening their appeal
I expect this to continue and labour to struggle in the red wall and make no impact in Scotland, while the lib dems cause quite some difficulty in the blue wall seats
Very interesting times and I expect in GE 24 the conservatoires to lose a good number of seats and emerge with a greatly reduced majority
However, we cannot predict more than a few weeks at present so who knows about GE24, it is also discussed with a considerable amount of understandable partisanship
GRN: 49.2% (+33.3)
CON: 44.7% (-8.0)
IND: 6.1% (-12.6)
Green GAIN from Conservative.
No LDem (-12.8) as prev.
Yes there are bad apples, but the police need our help at this time and not your views which are abhorrent
Couzens should be serving a whole life sentence for what he did to Sarah Everard. Her suffering - and the suffering of her friends and family - far outweighs any lasting impact on our relationship with the police.
All of these situations attack different aspects of the fundamental underpinnings of our democratic way of life. It is this vital factor which in my view makes the seriousness of this case exceptionally high. Self-evidently, it would need for the police officer to have used his role as a constable in a critical way to facilitate the commission of the offence; if his professional occupation was of little or no relevance to the offending, then these considerations clearly would not apply.
There is something systemically wrong and it needs root and branch reform.
The Police need change from the top down. There seems to be wilful ignorance as to the problem and the scale of the problem.
I've often wondered why no major democracies have a pyramidal form of representation, where everyone elects their local councillors, and those then select representatives to act as MPs for multi-member constituences. It would strengthen the ties between local and national representation, remove duplication, provide for something closer to PR while maintaining (very) local links between the MP and the constituents, and open up a much bigger and more diverse political talent pool allowing people to rise through the ranks.
Other side benefits would be the virtual end of well connected candidates being parachuted into safe seats. One downside might be that it would put off ambitious high profile individuals who might not want to start at the bottom - the likes of Rory Stewart for example, or Glenda Jackson back in the day.
Easington Lane which is adjacent to Hetton used to be notorious for the number of stolen cars that ended up there - supposedly the Police were rather nervous of going in as their panda cars might be subject to a stoning. So 'twas said, anyway.
But to characterise them a @StuartDickson did is unacceptable and unhelpful
Lab 1,258 44.7%
IND (Geddis) 554 19.7%
Con 545 19.4%
UKIP 313 11.1%
Green 81 2.8%
LD 63 2.2%
2814 votes
LAB: 31.6% (-13.1)
LDEM: 30.3% (+28.1)
IND (Geddis): 18.5% (-1.2)
CON: 14.5% (-4.9)
IND (Allen): 3.2% (+3.2)
GRN: 2.0% (-0.8)
2092 votes
I have similarly negative experiences with most ex-servicemen. In fact, come to think of it, they’re even worse. But again, I just don’t know a lot of ex-servicemen, so the sample is useless.
I wouldn't say they were all bad but a chunk are and there is a perception they tend to cover for each other rather than do the right thing. I am not saying that is fact, just public perception.
Here it is again if anyone wants it:
https://davidallengreen.com/2021/09/why-the-whole-life-sentence-for-the-murderer-of-sarah-everard-is-correct/
I think Hacker ended up postponing that scheme until the 21st century, until it was pointed out that he might still be PM then. So he went for the century after that.
(And how are my views “abhorrent”? I simply observed police people who abused alcohol, had serious mental health diagnosis, and expressed racist opinions. Nothing to do with my “views” one way or the other.)
I think the good cops generally know who the bad ones are, just as in my profession we know who are the good doctors. The difficulty in this canteen level knowledge is being able to translate it into action. The level of proof required just isn't there. Ditto school teachers, clerics, military personnel, lawyers, politicians etc etc.
Rooting out the bad apples is not an easy nor risk free task, and changing a culture requires that whistle-blowing is different to poison pen vendetta. The problem of the Investigator, and I have been in that role, is that level of evidence required, but for justice that level is rightly high.
And I did myself acknowledge that it was a “voodoo poll”.
Starship Troopers *sounds* like a good idea....
Meanwhile, some analysts are noting that the pound is acting like an emerging market currency.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-30/dollar-s-upswing-pounds-home-a-zero-sum-divide-in-foreign-exchange?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=bloomberguk&cmpid==socialflow-twitter-bloomberguk
The market seems to be worried about a policy mistake. Monetary and fiscal policy is set to tighten, and the higher energy prices, in this context, are like another consumption tax. Part of the energy shortage in the UK is also idiosyncratic and related to structural conditions of the labor market on this side of Brexit. Meanwhile, it [is] antagonizing Europe by granting only 12 of 47 applications for fishing licenses, and the debate over the Northern Ireland protocols appears to be intensifying.
Middle aged men are literally safer. As are middle aged women, btw
The median age for rape complainants is close to the age of peak female fertility: early 20s
Whole life sentences shouldn't be rationed like firsts at university.
He was a Rotarian, in round table and of course the masons, and used to preach to the local church on Sundays
This is his story as he sued 4 media organisations and received £375,000 in damages in 1994 and was finally jailed in 2016
BBC News - Gordon Anglesea: Jailed child abuse ex-police boss dies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38333441
Labour won't mind doing badly in East Hampshire- like C+A, they're vanishingly unlikely to win there, so if their voters go elsewhere in enough numbers to seriously harm the Conservatives, that's fine.
But they do need to be doing well somewhere, and it's not obvious that they are at the moment.
But the next election (presumably GE23 if the Conservatives are confident of winning, GE24 if they are on course to lose) is going to depend on events. Of which there will be plenty.
Never had you down as such a woke feminist.
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
11h
The Rows (West Suffolk) by-election result:
CON: 65.2% (+26.5)
LAB: 19.2% (+19.2)
LDEM: 15.5% (+15.5)
Conservative GAIN from Independent.
No Ind(s) (-61.3) as prev.
I wonder why?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/30/breaking-promises-keir-starmer-power-new-labour-political-strategists
And as far as @Cyclefree article is concerned I agree with all of it
What Couzens will experience is as close the British judicial system gets to a death sentence. No chance of release, no possibility of redemption, the rest of his entire life in something close to solitary confinement, constantly at risk of attack from others. As an ex con says in the Times today (££) ‘he may wish he’d got a death sentence instead’
This cruel punishment is necessary for multiple reasons, not least deterrence. Any other rotten copper fancying a bit of rape and murder needs to know that, if caught, they will be hurled into a dungeon until they die
Other murders are different, and deserve different life sentences. 20-30 years in prison is still enough to break someone into pieces, vanishingly few people re-offend after a life sentence like that, yet the release at the end offers the chance of redemption and remorse, and maybe repayment to society
What I do object to are the ‘life sentences’ that turn out to be 12 years or whatever, but I’m not sure they’re that common?
If councillors are elected by FPTP on your system there would also not be a real change to PR nationally.
Plus plenty of MPs have already been elected as councillors at some stage before getting elected to Parliament already .
Indeed Ben Bradley is now leader of Nottinghamshire county council as well as MP for Mansfield
Perhaps that is what happened here?
https://www.gmc-uk.org/
Anti-English bias? What on earth are you on about? The anti-Irish racist in question was a Scot working for a large English metropolis in the 1970s, when the IRA was a big thing and being a racist was a bog-standard feature of English society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bodkin_Adams
'On 24 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) sent a letter to all doctors in Eastbourne reminding them of "Professional Secrecy" (i.e., patient confidentiality) if interviewed by the police.[42] The police were frustrated by this move, although some local doctors ignored it and gave statements relating either to deceased patients or, in one instance, one that was alive.[43] The action of the BMA was part of a concerted attempt by it to secure better terms for its members, whose pay had remained virtually static since the National Health Service had been set up in 1948:[44] this action later led to talk of an all-out strike.[45]
The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (who customarily prosecuted cases of poisoning or delegated it to the Solicitor General),[46][47] wrote to the BMA secretary, Angus Macrae, "to try to get him to remove the ban".[42] The impasse continued until on 8 November Manningham-Buller met Macrae to convince him of the importance of the case. During this meeting, in a highly unusual move, he passed Hannam's confidential 187-page report on Adams to Macrae. His intention was to convince the BMA of the seriousness of the accusations and for the need to obtain cooperation from local doctors.[48] Macrae took the report to the President of the BMA and returned it the next day. Convinced of the seriousness of the accusations, Macrae dropped his opposition to doctors talking to the police.[49]
It has been speculated that Macrae also copied the report and passed it on to the defence,[50] and conspiracy theorists have claimed that Manningham-Buller did so with the intention of assisting the defence case, but there is no evidence of this.[51] However, the incident does call Manningham-Buller's competence into question, and he was strongly criticised at the time.[ii]
On 28 November 1956, opposition Labour Party MPs Stephen Swingler and Hugh Delargy gave notice of two questions to be asked in the House of Commons regarding the affair, one asking what "reports [the Attorney-General] has sent" to the General Medical Council (GMC) in the "past six months".[53] Manningham-Buller replied that he had "had no communications" with the GMC, but only with an officer of it. He did not mention the report.[53] Instead, he instigated an investigation into a leak,[53] later concluding that Hannam himself[50] had passed information regarding the meeting with Macrae to a journalist, probably Rodney Hallworth of the Daily Mail.[54]'
And the Greens won a seat in Hampshire. I believe their first above town or parish level.
The wonderfully appropriately named Blossom Gottlieb no less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
Here's one where the cops get there in time.
Fun fact: Sparta, Mississippi, where In the Heat of the Night is set is actually 130 miles away from the state line with Arkansas. The bridge featured is actually in Sparta, Illinois, where the picture was filmed. That is indeed on the state line over the Mississipi River, albeit across the water from Missouri, not Arkansas.
That closes off the avenue of MP blaming the Council, Council blaming the MP.
It's a view.
Even in the early 1990s Mrs Eek's dad (a BTP policeman) had to doublecheck it was OK for her to visit Belfast to see Uni friends.
I suspect the real story here is simpler - Conservative elected in a strongly Conservative area when a popular independent goes (and similar things happen in strongly Labour or Lib Dem areas when that happens).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_orders#Quashed_whole-life_orders
In particular...
Anthony Entwistle...[redacted as it's not very nice] In 2009, Mr. Justice Davis ruled at the High Court that Entwistle could be considered for release after 25 years (less 10 months spent on remand) if he was judged to no longer be a threat to the public, rather than imposing a whole life tariff, saying that "He can only be released if ever (and it may be never) he is assessed as no longer a danger to the public." The parole board turned down his request for release in June 2013.
And who's going to agree to release Roy Whiting?
Independent, presumably mighty popular from that 61.3% vote, sadly died.
Probably why only the Tories stood in competition before now.
Now they aren't there it becomes a more "real" election.
I live in a v similar ward. Former incumbent Tory Indy gets 70%+. No doubt would have a similar result here in absence of Indy.