Ladbrokes make the Tories odds on favourites to take Hartlepool in the first Westminster by-election

Casino_Royale said:

I'm watching The Hollow Crown: Richard II again, with Ben Wishart and Patrick Stewart.

Because it's excellent.

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.

Would you support the tories playing the Rotherham card?

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.

Would you support the tories playing the Rotherham card?

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I don’t know why Labour tweeted that considering there has been issue with low conviction rates for rape for a very long time now. Certainly I don’t remember things being much different when Labour were in power, but I am happy to be corrected.

I am sure it was much better when SKS was DPP. Bound to have been, wasn't it?

Isn't it the case that an overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near court either because of a complete lack of evidence, or because the complaint chooses to drop the complaint? There's not much that can be done about that.

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I don’t know why Labour tweeted that considering there has been issue with low conviction rates for rape for a very long time now. Certainly I don’t remember things being much different when Labour were in power, but I am happy to be corrected.

I am sure it was much better when SKS was DPP. Bound to have been, wasn't it?

Isn't it the case that an overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near court either because of a complete lack of evidence, or because the complaint chooses to drop the complaint? There's not much that can be done about that.

Yes. They are, to use the parlance, "no crimed". There is no corroborating evidence or the complainant is either reluctant, or withdraws. The police/CPS then have no choice.

It is very hard to convict a man when it is simply her word against his, and there are absolutely no witnesses, and absolutely no corroboration (eg marks on her body implying force).

The law is then stuck. If the case does not proceed then a major injustice might be done to a truthful woman who lacks any other evidence. But if it proceeds, can you really convict a man and send him to prison for 5-7 years, and possibly ruin his life, when there is zero evidence other than a mere accusation? Then you're back to the Witchcraft Act of James II: allegation means guilt

I'm not sure how you solve it. Many legislatures have tried, and failed

turbotubbs said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

Because no one ever lies, or changes their mind, or gets drunk and fancies a guy but in the morning thinks they have made a mistake.

TheScreamingEagles said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

Any candidate hoping to win in Hartlepool needs to appreciate that it should be referred to as being in County Durham, not Teesside.

It is in the Tees Valley mayoral constituency ergo it is Teeside.

Next you'll be saying Geordies and Mackems are different groups even though they all sound the same and have an 0191 area code.

Understanding the history of local government organisation and its changes in the area of the old Co Durham is not altogether straightforward.

The best thing any Prime Minister has ever done was Ted Heath's local government reorganisation when he rightly put Middlesbrough in the North East.

alex_ said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.

Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.

Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.

It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Omnium said:

It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...

☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.

Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?

First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.

Are you ignoring the whopper released by the Conservatives tonight, and highlighted by TSE, for any particular reason?

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

Yes.

It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.

Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?

That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)

Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.

Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.

This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

It is also true, i think, that you can skew the law as much as you like, but I would speculate that rape is probably one crime more than any other where juries are likely to impose their own opinions of what the law should be, rather than what they are instructed that it is. And pass verdicts accordingly.

Although your point does, i suppose, restrict the ranges of defence that the accused is allowed to employ.

It wasn't a point I believe as of now the law says a woman can be to drunk to consent even if she is ripping your clothes off and going down on you

No i understand - but i was saying that it doesn't matter what "the law" says. Somebody is only guilty if a jury says that they are.

The point is that the law change will still affect the course of a trial, because a defendant cannot use drunken-ness (their own or their alleged victim) as a defence. So in practice they have to find another, legally permissable, defence - but simply raise the issue of one or other (or both) drunkeness tangentially, and leave it to the jury to draw their own conclusions in the privacy of the jury room.

Ah then you didnt understand what I said under law currently

A drunk woman cant consent
A drunk man cant use being drunk as a reason he didnt know the woman couldnt consent as she was too drunk

BluestBlue said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

If that's the way they want politics to be played, then good luck to the vile little hypocrites. Let's never hear another word about civility from them ever again.

Are you ignoring the whopper released by the Conservatives tonight, and highlighted by TSE, for any particular reason?

Yes. You said, and I quote, 'the Labour one is significantly more offensive'. You were right.

So I thought it sensible to follow your lead on this occasion.

Black_Rook said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/1371930700774055943

Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.

Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Black_Rook said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/1371930700774055943

Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.

Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?

What would be brilliant is if the Scotland Act is amended at Westminster, to give the Scottish Parliament MORE powers to hold the executive to account, the SNP voting against. That would be a really clarifying moment (though I think they'd be sensible enough to realise voting 'for' would be the only way).

isam said:

Hats off to Sir Keir in one respect though - he’s nailed that Ed Miliband impression. Uncanny

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371906306387415040?s=21

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Omnium said:

It's a shame that the first by-election for ages has to happen in a safe Tory seat like Hartlepool...

☺ - Yep. But if Labour can somehow win this one the whole movement will be galvanized. It will be like when Ian Poulter sank that putt on the Saturday at the 2012 RC to set up the following day's Miracle at Medinah.

Gosh labour actually managing to hold a seat will galvanise them....that really is the height of ambition....we will manage to hold seats we already have?

First stop the rot. Then turn things around. Then triumph. That's the Medinah template for Labour. It starts in Hartlepool.

Pagan2 said:

isam said:

Hats off to Sir Keir in one respect though - he’s nailed that Ed Miliband impression. Uncanny

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1371906306387415040?s=21

I always had him down for a tin tin impersonator with that hair style I always look out for snowy and captain haddock

MaxPB said:

I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.

MaxPB said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Black_Rook said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/1371930700774055943

Presumably, now all of the accusations have been made in the Commons, they are part of the public record and can be used as ammunition in the chamber at Holyrood? Of course, it's too late for the inquiry - which, some have suggested, was rather the point of all the previous attempts to have these allegations redacted or suppressed - but it's not too late for it all to be used during the election campaign.

Will this make any significant difference to the course of said election though? Somehow I doubt it. About the best that might come out of this fiasco is the extension of Parliamentary privilege and other measures to "deliver separation of powers to Scotland," as Davis called for in his speech, but whether the UK Government will act or not, who can say?

What would be brilliant is if the Scotland Act is amended at Westminster, to give the Scottish Parliament MORE powers to hold the executive to account, the SNP voting against. That would be a really clarifying moment (though I think they'd be sensible enough to realise voting 'for' would be the only way).

I think amending the act to give MSPs parliamentary privilege is absolutely necessary. There is no case for them and other devolved representatives to not have it.

NickPalmer said:

I think Hartlepool will be hard to hold - the CLP is deeply divided and they only have 6 councillors left. But the Tories have a certain self-congratulatory air about the Red Wall which I don't think gets the tone quite right. I do expect a Tory gain, but not by a large majority - obviously it depends partly on who else stands.

Unusually, perhaps, I went to Hartlepool for a wedding. A friend of my wife's got married on a posh ship that's permanently moored in the harbour. Nice event. The town near the harbour did look pretty bleak, though.

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

Yes.

It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.

Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?

That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)

Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.

Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.

This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way

Yes it was loaded against women and that was wrong, however its always going to be a hard crime to prosecute in most cases because most are people being dragged off the streets and forced.

Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.

For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent

Northern_Al said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

Yes.

It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.

Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?

That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)

Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.

Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.

This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way

Yes it was loaded against women and that was wrong, however its always going to be a hard crime to prosecute in most cases because most are people being dragged off the streets and forced.

Most rape cases are miscommunication one person thinks one thing the other thinks they said another.

For example I am lying in bed asleep having a dream about priti patel in body hugging latex and thigh high boots I get an erection. The girl in bed with me notices and I wake up to her riding me.....is that rape? I didnt give consent

I'm sure there are other sites more suitable for you to share your fantasies on.

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

I can't see the Tories taking this seat.

Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.

A lot of them won't go Conservative though. This is what Farage knew. A lot of old Labour just can't bring themselves to vote Tory... Without BXP most of their voters will stay at home.

DavidL said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

I can't see the Tories taking this seat.

Have you added in all the UKIPER/BREXITY Party voters from 2019 to the Conservative column? If you do it becomes quite clear.

But there is no same basis for doing such a thing. There just isn't.

The perception is the Party led by Johnson isn't a distant, elitist cabal of overindulged Southern, public schoolboys. After all Johnson goes out to work in a hi-viz jacket or a lab coat like the rest of us grafters. Johnson and his compatriots have the interests of hard working blue collar staff in their hearts. For goodness sake they have spent the last year feeding our bank accounts with free money. This isn't the Tory Party of Home or Heath, or even Cameron and Osborne for that matter. It is the party of "Boris", infact are they even called Conservatives anymore?

The perception of the Labour Party at present, is that of Southern public school elitists who have never done a day's work in their lives. They are only interested in taking the knee, supporting foreigners, Rochdale cabbies, and people who pull down statues of patriotic heroes.

For this perception to change, economic hardship will need to bite, and when it does, Dido Harding and PPE procurement scandals will become important to people struggling to pay their mortgage. If it doesn't Boris can happily celebrate a 25 year premiership.

That's exactly my take too. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour retain this seat. The Cons are clear favourites for me. Might put quite a wedge on.

MaxPB said:

solarflare said:

MaxPB said:

I'm listening to the David David speech, it's extremely damning. I don't understand how this evidence was barred from the inquiry. The whole justice system in Scotland is rotten, politicised and not fit for purpose. The lines between politics and justice are so blurred that you can't tell which is which.

If I understand it (and with this whole thing I'm not always convinced I do, but...), it (or at least some of it) is evidence that Salmond offered up to the committee, if they'd just nicely contact his lawyers and ask for it.

Why the committee have chosen not to do that is a different thing. I'm sure it's almost certainly not related to the numerical composition of the committee. Cough.

I think Davis didn't actually say that many things today that weren't already known. There were a few, but not many. But the implication clearly seems to be that either it'll come out properly in the committee or it'll come out in the House of Commons.

Yes, Davis has clearly threatened the committee with parliamentary privilege in Westminster to expose their blatant politicking on evidence gathering and politically convenient redactions. I assume once something has been made public in the House of Commons the committee in Holyrood can use that as evidence as the same parliamentary privilege then protects others when they repeat it publicly.

Still the way out of this is to amend the act and give MSPs the same parliamentary privilege, separate out the DPP from politics and make the Scottish civil service much more independent of the government as they are in Whitehall.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

Phillip not wearing a mask, the devil.

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

I was once (until about 3 days ago) a reluctant Leaver.

No more.

I now feel like someone who has escaped a cult, who gets the last round of therapy, and sees the cult for what it is.

Thank God we are out. Even if it costs 10% of GDP, we now govern ourselves. These halfwits can damage us no more, we just have to deal with our own halfwits.

But we can throw them out at elections

Cookie said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

Apparently the EU is now accusing national governments of stockpiling the vaccine. I think.
Why? Why are they so keen to have a vaccine they are so reluctant to use or for anyone else to use? Most political cock-ups involve incompetence, some involve corruption. But there's normally some point to it. This involves - what? Who benefits? I genuinely don't understand what the Europeans are playing at.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1371949009594638337

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1371946355527155716

Phillip not wearing a mask, the devil.

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

LostPassword said:

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a seriously irresponsible tweet from Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488

That...is a pretty bold statement. And apart from anything else I have no idea what the stats were under previous governments so I have no way of knowing if the disparity between 'reports' and 'charges' has grown.

It has grown, a bit. Though I think it was always a massive discrepancy. And I think the reason it has grown is that there has been much greater encouragement to report rape (and indeed greater keenness to take it to court).

The problem with trying rape is that it is, by its nature, almost always one person's word against another. In a culture where we are innocent until proven guilty, that makes it very hard to make a conviction.

I don't understand how it is one person's word against another. If a person says they did not consent to something I'm not sure that any other person's opinion is relevant.

? Because they might be lying?

One thing that most people aren't aware of though (if i'm accurately remembering the guidance given by the judge when i was on a rape case jury, and the law may have changed since then) is that it is not sufficient for the victim to have not explicitly granted consent - a defendant can be not guilty under the law if they genuinely believe that has been given (or possibly not denied). In other words, if they say "no" then it's rape. If they are merely unwilling, but the defendant is not aware of this, then it isn't.

Its also worth noting that the law has already been skewed, two people meet in a pub both drunk she can consent to go home and have sex and then claim in the morning it was rape as she was too drunk to consent whereas the guy can't claim to be to drunk to realise she was too drunk to consent

Yes.

It used to be the case that rape law was heavily loaded against the woman. eg rape cases, uniquely, required the jury to be warned by the judge that "alleged victims are known to lie". That misogynist idiocy was rightly done away with, also the absurd idea you "can't rape within a marriage". Get rid of it? Yes. Good.

Other shifts are more controversial. Is it right complainants should have lifelong anonymity, whereas the accused is named from the moment he is charged, and forever allowed to be named, even if acquitted?

That is debatable, I personally believe both should be anonymous until the jury decides on guilt. If he is guilty, name him. Otherwise, not. But I can see arguments the other way (eg not naming an alleged perp makes it harder to find him for coppers)

Recently, ultra-feminist campaigners have crossed over the line, to my mind. The drunken thing you mention is one example. Another is this: a few years ago they tried to have all previous sexual history ruled "irrelevant" and inadmissible in court. So if you - a man - were accused of raping your girlfriend, you were not allowed to mention that fact - ie that you and she had already had sex 300 times. The jury would never know that this was an alleged "date rape", or a "rape in a relationship", they would only know the facts of the actual night.

Absurd. Yet it nearly passed into law.

This is where we risk tilting the balance against the defendant in a profoundly disturbing way

MaxPB said:

My wife tonight showed me her contraceptive pill notes and one of the listed severe side effects is actually thrombosis, having looked it up it's a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing severe thrombosis for the type of contraceptive pill she takes. Obviously she still takes it anyway, but she was pretty scathing over the double standards being applied to the vaccine which has no causal link proved yet Germany and other European countries have granted full licences for the pill which has a known causal link to blood clots.