Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
It is incredibly depressing how many upvotes this post got. We are advocating abusing judges.
Nice try but 100% misreading of the post.
Do you think the Mail want anything other than abuse of this person? You are honest and I can trust in what you're saying but you're amongst very bad company here.
I don't read the Mail but I have read 1984.
Two things can both be right at the same time: Supporting public justice being done by identifiable judges (a long UK tradition, even in NI in the bad old days) and opposing abuse of those same people.
The alternative to open justice is secret justice.
It seem to me quite clear which is worse.
And if abuse is incited, I think these days we have a whole bucket-load of offences which can apply.
Defining a Newspaper as a malicious communication is an interesting one.
I was wondering about that. Murmuring the Judges and all that. I'd like to see a prosecution the next time it happens.
Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in October next year if her government secures the legal approval to stage it.
"if"...
All Nicola Sturgeon announced yesterday was her intention to continue to keep talking about promising a second Referendum next year, its become an annual event to keep the SNP membership from getting too restless... I suspect yesterday's Independence PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood was more about launching Angus Robertson's leadership campaign to succeed her, and I predict that there is now more chance of Nicola Sturgeon standing down than an Indy Ref happening next year.
As ever with Nicola the stuff left out is more interesting than the stuff which is stated.
Malc's favourite canine nourishment entrepreneur pointed out the extent of benefit to Scotland beyond the tax raised there, which numbers were for some reason not in the graphs published by Sturgeon:
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
It is normal to know the name of judges involved in cases. It's called open justice.
I predict you and I would know FA about the judge if named. What you and Nigel are hoping for is a subsequent tabloid exposé of nefarious EU-loving gay blade type activities.
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
In a COMPLETELY mad town in the “winelands” of the Armenian Caucasus, where the only person that speaks English, it seems, is “Varndan”, the 7 year old son of the hotel owner. Everyone else just shrugs and gently laughs by way of saying sorry. Armenians are really nice: friendly, polite, amiable, fairly sensible drivers, which is great as I have to concentrate every second so as to avoid the ginormous, car-killing pot holes
When the Armenians say “winelands” they mean a series of hideous post-Soviet towns made mainly of poor cement and worse concrete, hidden away in stunning red rock canyons (like Arizona) where the higher slopes are blushed with poppies and every other street has some lovely woman, amidst the rubble
The wine is excellent; they claim these steep smoky valleys are the the birthplace of wine. It is a frequently ugly, occasionally sublime and generally compelling place
I’ve had Georgian wine before but never Armenian. Which wine have you been trying ?
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
It is normal to know the name of judges involved in cases. It's called open justice.
I predict you and I would know FA about the judge if named. What you and Nigel are hoping for is a subsequent tabloid exposé of nefarious EU-loving gay blade type activities.
That's right, like having a starter of toast spread with that olive stuff*. Definitely unBritish.
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Heck's in Street. They do perry as well. Tasters first.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
In a COMPLETELY mad town in the “winelands” of the Armenian Caucasus, where the only person that speaks English, it seems, is “Varndan”, the 7 year old son of the hotel owner. Everyone else just shrugs and gently laughs by way of saying sorry. Armenians are really nice: friendly, polite, amiable, fairly sensible drivers, which is great as I have to concentrate every second so as to avoid the ginormous, car-killing pot holes
When the Armenians say “winelands” they mean a series of hideous post-Soviet towns made mainly of poor cement and worse concrete, hidden away in stunning red rock canyons (like Arizona) where the higher slopes are blushed with poppies and every other street has some lovely woman, amidst the rubble
The wine is excellent; they claim these steep smoky valleys are the the birthplace of wine. It is a frequently ugly, occasionally sublime and generally compelling place
I’ve had Georgian wine before but never Armenian. Which wine have you been trying ?
Did you decide where next ?
One of the Stans ?
I’m in the Areni region, which makes fabulous reds and whites. They also do a Georgian-style amphora-aged qveri wine but they call it Karas. Not to my taste
And it looks like they genuinely have some claim to be the oldest wine region in the world, which is pleasing
ComRes puts us very firmly in mid single figures lead Tories perhaps off their base level and crawling back towards mid 30s?
I would be interested to know how much of the movements within each series of polls is undecided “former” Tories “coming home”.
Most movement to Tory will be, they arent attractung new boys!
Yeah but I’m thinking “undecided” vs. “now reporting a Labour/LD/Ref” vote. I have a hunch that when all is said and done in 2024 people will be saying the story was there in the polls all along - many Tory voters sat on their hands for a while then held their noses and came home on polling day.
In a COMPLETELY mad town in the “winelands” of the Armenian Caucasus, where the only person that speaks English, it seems, is “Varndan”, the 7 year old son of the hotel owner. Everyone else just shrugs and gently laughs by way of saying sorry. Armenians are really nice: friendly, polite, amiable, fairly sensible drivers, which is great as I have to concentrate every second so as to avoid the ginormous, car-killing pot holes
When the Armenians say “winelands” they mean a series of hideous post-Soviet towns made mainly of poor cement and worse concrete, hidden away in stunning red rock canyons (like Arizona) where the higher slopes are blushed with poppies and every other street has some lovely woman, amidst the rubble
The wine is excellent; they claim these steep smoky valleys are the the birthplace of wine. It is a frequently ugly, occasionally sublime and generally compelling place
I do enjoy these travelogues, from you and others. You're a little unusual in being adventurous on your own, which makes them all the better.
If the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict were to restart, do you have enough of an impression to have a preferred side?
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Heck's in Street. They do perry as well. Tasters first.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
Cheers Carnyx. I’ve had Heck’s cider before in bottle from scrattings website and in some of the cider pubs up here. Didn’t know they do Perry. I love a good Perry. I’ll Google it and see if I can persuade my wife to take a detour. She’s keen to go to Healeys in Cornwall but, IIRC, they make from concentrate.
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Heck's in Street. They do perry as well. Tasters first.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
Cheers Carnyx. I’ve had Heck’s cider before in bottle from scrattings website and in some of the cider pubs up here. Didn’t know they do Perry. I love a good Perry. I’ll Google it and see if I can persuade my wife to take a detour. She’s keen to go to Healeys in Cornwall but, IIRC, they make from concentrate.
Plewnty of other goodies - fruit, cheese etc if that helps. Having a tasting is recommended - some of the scrumpies are more remiscent of the more floor-polishy malts. But there is some very good cider and perry.
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Heck's in Street. They do perry as well. Tasters first.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
Cheers Carnyx. I’ve had Heck’s cider before in bottle from scrattings website and in some of the cider pubs up here. Didn’t know they do Perry. I love a good Perry. I’ll Google it and see if I can persuade my wife to take a detour. She’s keen to go to Healeys in Cornwall but, IIRC, they make from concentrate.
PS there is always the Clakrs Village if she wants shoes from Clarks ...
I agree with you Woolie, comres last was a bit of an outlier.
I’ve noted a few times the Comres polling baffles me, how do they get the greens so low when others don’t? Answer is they are clearly adding a splash of green to their Labour scores. What they are though is very consistent, apart from an outlier last time, still around margins of error type outlier of which this poll is reverting back so fools gold movement for Tories, they are consistent on the gap of 6, a high Labour of 40, a low green, a low Libdem, and a higher Tory share. Very consistent all year with those figures.
Back to 54 for the 'progressives' too of course. Green 4 seems more realistic for a GE, especially as they may not stand everywhere. LDs a little disappointing given the redfield. We have been circling these sorts of figures since the crossover in late 2021
The comres pollster does stand alone from other pollsters though. A model of consistency, which is good. The progressives now 54 was only 56 with them last time despite high labour and low Tory score, so again consistency. The time before that 54 with figures identical to todays! again consistency. The time before that 55 in figures identical to now save Lab 41.
With such consistency we can spot the outlier. By counting the progressive alliance we can spot how was a outlier, too many Lab too few Tory got in the sample.
This poll has been weighed, measured, stamped, franked, numbered, and filed in the same Dewey Decimal system Leon’s aliens come from.
In a COMPLETELY mad town in the “winelands” of the Armenian Caucasus, where the only person that speaks English, it seems, is “Varndan”, the 7 year old son of the hotel owner. Everyone else just shrugs and gently laughs by way of saying sorry. Armenians are really nice: friendly, polite, amiable, fairly sensible drivers, which is great as I have to concentrate every second so as to avoid the ginormous, car-killing pot holes
When the Armenians say “winelands” they mean a series of hideous post-Soviet towns made mainly of poor cement and worse concrete, hidden away in stunning red rock canyons (like Arizona) where the higher slopes are blushed with poppies and every other street has some lovely woman, amidst the rubble
The wine is excellent; they claim these steep smoky valleys are the the birthplace of wine. It is a frequently ugly, occasionally sublime and generally compelling place
I do enjoy these travelogues, from you and others. You're a little unusual in being adventurous on your own, which makes them all the better.
If the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict were to restart, do you have enough of an impression to have a preferred side?
Definitely Armenia, because I’m here and they are nice. And yet I was in Baku 20 years back and they were nice too. Wars are, obviously, shit
If it does kick off again, which i fear it might (lots of Armenians want a rematch) then I suspect the Azeris would win easily, again. The Azeris have lots of oil money, a much bigger economy, and a keen, urgent big brother in Turkey. The Armenians are much poorer and smaller, and Russia, THEIR big brother, is otherwise engaged
I’ve noticed that all the big hotels are flying Ukrainian AND Russian flags. Talk about hedging your bets. But small nations have to act like small nations, especially around here
Roadside wine seller in the Armenian winelands. One of those big muthas would set you back about three quid. Note the Lada beyond. Most people drive Ladas held together with sellotape
The white jerricans? I know a cidery in Somerset which sells cider on much the same basis (though alas not so economically).
We’re off to Cornwall shortly.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
Heck's in Street. They do perry as well. Tasters first.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
Cheers Carnyx. I’ve had Heck’s cider before in bottle from scrattings website and in some of the cider pubs up here. Didn’t know they do Perry. I love a good Perry. I’ll Google it and see if I can persuade my wife to take a detour. She’s keen to go to Healeys in Cornwall but, IIRC, they make from concentrate.
Plewnty of other goodies - fruit, cheese etc if that helps. Having a tasting is recommended - some of the scrumpies are more remiscent of the more floor-polishy malts. But there is some very good cider and perry.
That’s cracking. Thanks. Didn’t realise they did all that. 👍
In a COMPLETELY mad town in the “winelands” of the Armenian Caucasus, where the only person that speaks English, it seems, is “Varndan”, the 7 year old son of the hotel owner. Everyone else just shrugs and gently laughs by way of saying sorry. Armenians are really nice: friendly, polite, amiable, fairly sensible drivers, which is great as I have to concentrate every second so as to avoid the ginormous, car-killing pot holes
When the Armenians say “winelands” they mean a series of hideous post-Soviet towns made mainly of poor cement and worse concrete, hidden away in stunning red rock canyons (like Arizona) where the higher slopes are blushed with poppies and every other street has some lovely woman, amidst the rubble
The wine is excellent; they claim these steep smoky valleys are the the birthplace of wine. It is a frequently ugly, occasionally sublime and generally compelling place
I’ve had Georgian wine before but never Armenian. Which wine have you been trying ?
Did you decide where next ?
One of the Stans ?
I’m in the Areni region, which makes fabulous reds and whites. They also do a Georgian-style amphora-aged qveri wine but they call it Karas. Not to my taste
And it looks like they genuinely have some claim to be the oldest wine region in the world, which is pleasing
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
What will be interesting is what Geidt has to say for himself. What has happened which makes him feel the need to preserve his reputation by no longer shilling for a liar?
They really are useless old duffers. If he had done this just 9 days ago, he would have brought down the PM. Now it will make zero difference, apart from he will be replaced by someone more pliable.
Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in October next year if her government secures the legal approval to stage it.
"if"...
All Nicola Sturgeon announced yesterday was her intention to continue to keep talking about promising a second Referendum next year, its become an annual event to keep the SNP membership from getting too restless... I suspect yesterday's Independence PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood was more about launching Angus Robertson's leadership campaign to succeed her, and I predict that there is now more chance of Nicola Sturgeon standing down than an Indy Ref happening next year.
As ever with Nicola the stuff left out is more interesting than the stuff which is stated.
Malc's favourite canine nourishment entrepreneur pointed out the extent of benefit to Scotland beyond the tax raised there, which numbers were for some reason not in the graphs published by Sturgeon:
It's understandable why Labour allowed this when they were winning most of the seats in Scotland.
But why on earth does Boris allow this to continue? He's going to win very few seats in Scotland anyway - so why not tell Scotland that from now on they get their fair share of spending and nothing more?
The SNP spends their whole time complaining about the UK Govt and in return the UK Govt keeps handing them far more money than they deserve.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
It's basically part of the grieving / counselling process for victims.
A huge fuss and vast public expense is undertaken really just for the purpose of making them feel better.
Perhaps he might explain what has changed that has led to him to quit now, as opposed to, to pick a completely random date, 9 days ago.
As Nick Palmer mentions above
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Perhaps he might explain what has changed that has led to him to quit now, as opposed to, to pick a completely random date, 9 days ago.
As Nick Palmer mentions above
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
Being forced to confront the uselessness of one's own position can be dispirting, perhaps it pushed him too far. It's why I try not to be self reflective, I'm not confident I'd come out of that assessment well.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
It is normal to know the name of judges involved in cases. It's called open justice.
I predict you and I would know FA about the judge if named. What you and Nigel are hoping for is a subsequent tabloid exposé of nefarious EU-loving gay blade type activities.
That's right, like having a starter of toast spread with that olive stuff*. Definitely unBritish.
*Tapenade, to inform our Brexiters.
Tapenade? Tap an arse more like, you'd get the same shit....
(Was that Bernard Manningy enough for you? Only, I was a bit pushed for time....)
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Harsh but pretty fair - if he was unhappy with how things were going down he's left it way too late to say so now.
Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in October next year if her government secures the legal approval to stage it.
"if"...
All Nicola Sturgeon announced yesterday was her intention to continue to keep talking about promising a second Referendum next year, its become an annual event to keep the SNP membership from getting too restless... I suspect yesterday's Independence PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood was more about launching Angus Robertson's leadership campaign to succeed her, and I predict that there is now more chance of Nicola Sturgeon standing down than an Indy Ref happening next year.
As ever with Nicola the stuff left out is more interesting than the stuff which is stated.
Malc's favourite canine nourishment entrepreneur pointed out the extent of benefit to Scotland beyond the tax raised there, which numbers were for some reason not in the graphs published by Sturgeon:
It's understandable why Labour allowed this when they were winning most of the seats in Scotland.
But why on earth does Boris allow this to continue? He's going to win very few seats in Scotland anyway - so why not tell Scotland that from now on they get their fair share of spending and nothing more?
The SNP spends their whole time complaining about the UK Govt and in return the UK Govt keeps handing them far more money than they deserve.
The point is that the UK is a union which takes from the wealthy South East of England, and redistributes everywhere else, including Scotland.
That’s normal.
The fucked up bit is the disconnect between what the *Scottish government* taxes, and what is spends. Until and unless that relationship is 1:1, it will always be cost free to blame Westminster for everything.
Perhaps he might explain what has changed that has led to him to quit now, as opposed to, to pick a completely random date, 9 days ago.
As Nick Palmer mentions above
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
Being forced to confront the uselessness of one's own position can be dispirting, perhaps it pushed him too far. It's why I try not to be self reflective, I'm not confident I'd come out of that assessment well.
A while back a few friends played the game 'explain your job badly' and it was brutal.
Relatively, I felt ok when I said 'Helping idiots and bad people mitigate their fuck ups.'
Beautiful evening here in south Devon. Beach Boys' Pet Sounds adding to the experience..... One of four days a year you really pretend it is California.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
But what pisses me off is if a murder victim has parents they say, probably truthfully, child was the light of our lives, whatever happens to the perp, we have been given a life sentence without parole. What if they said x was an awkward kid who never really fitted in to the family, frankly it was a relief when they left home and their infrequent visits thereafter were always a trial? Does that affect things either way? Why should it?
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Everyone who has dealings with Boris Johnson ends up regretting it. It's only a question of when.
So the question for the Conservative payroll vote, for his defenders in the party and movement, and for the Mail/Sun/Telegraph remains what it's always been:
How much of your reputation are you prepared to sacrifice in the service of someone who despises you? Because he regards you as a stooge.
Perhaps he might explain what has changed that has led to him to quit now, as opposed to, to pick a completely random date, 9 days ago.
As Nick Palmer mentions above
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Harsh but pretty fair - if he was unhappy with how things were going down he's left it way too late to say so now.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Utd is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
But what pisses me off is if a murder victim has parents they say, probably truthfully, child was the light of our lives, whatever happens to the perp, we have been given a life sentence without parole. What if they said x was an awkward kid who never really fitted in to the family, frankly it was a relief when they left home and their infrequent visits thereafter were always a trial? Does that affect things either way? Why should it?
Yes, parent-child relationships are very rarely ones of mutual adoration, or not for long, anyway
I met a British couple in Yerevan the other night, and we had a nice drink. The guy was half Italian, early 50s, modest but amiable stockbroker. We talked about kids, and after a few vinos he revealed he had two MORE kids from a prior marriage, now in their late 20s, except, he said, “I haven’t seen them for 3 years because they just don’t like me”
He seemed entirely inoffensive: intelligent, quite charming, polite. Yet his older kids won’t see him or speak to him?
Who knows what the real backstory is. Families are so opaque to outsiders
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Harsh but pretty fair - if he was unhappy with how things were going down he's left it way too late to say so now.
Why did he leave it until now, rather than striking when the 148 were making their objections known
The news is dominated by Rwanda and the rail strikes and I doubt the resignation of civil servant will register amongst ordinary voters
To think he could have been the trigger to Boris's resignation/ loss of office
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Harsh but pretty fair - if he was unhappy with how things were going down he's left it way too late to say so now.
Why did he leave it until now, rather than striking when the 148 were making their objections known
The news is dominated by Rwanda and the rail strikes and I doubt the resignation of civil servant will register amongst ordinary voters
To think he could have been the trigger to Boris's resignation/ loss of office
Unless further dominoes do fall, it almost seems like he wanted to go, but Boris persuaded him to do so when it would not matter.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
But what pisses me off is if a murder victim has parents they say, probably truthfully, child was the light of our lives, whatever happens to the perp, we have been given a life sentence without parole. What if they said x was an awkward kid who never really fitted in to the family, frankly it was a relief when they left home and their infrequent visits thereafter were always a trial? Does that affect things either way? Why should it?
I don't know if it ever really happens, but american TV shows have informed me TV news will frequently report a victim's education achievements, eg they were a straight A student. Thank goodness they were not merely a middling student I guess.
Perhaps he might explain what has changed that has led to him to quit now, as opposed to, to pick a completely random date, 9 days ago.
As Nick Palmer mentions above
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
Being forced to confront the uselessness of one's own position can be dispirting, perhaps it pushed him too far. It's why I try not to be self reflective, I'm not confident I'd come out of that assessment well.
A while back a few friends played the game 'explain your job badly' and it was brutal.
Relatively, I felt ok when I said 'Helping idiots and bad people mitigate their fuck ups.'
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Harsh but pretty fair - if he was unhappy with how things were going down he's left it way too late to say so now.
Why did he leave it until now, rather than striking when the 148 were making their objections known
The news is dominated by Rwanda and the rail strikes and I doubt the resignation of civil servant will register amongst ordinary voters
To think he could have been the trigger to Boris's resignation/ loss of office
Unless further dominoes do fall, it almost seems like he wanted to go, but Boris persuaded him to do so when it would not matter.
You do wonder just what will take Boris down and as for retaining Tiverton !!!!!!!
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
But what pisses me off is if a murder victim has parents they say, probably truthfully, child was the light of our lives, whatever happens to the perp, we have been given a life sentence without parole. What if they said x was an awkward kid who never really fitted in to the family, frankly it was a relief when they left home and their infrequent visits thereafter were always a trial? Does that affect things either way? Why should it?
Indeed. Part of the proper dignity of justice, usually achieved I think, is this. Quite a few victims of very serious crime are themselves serious criminals, gang members, or dysfunctional, addicts of various predispositions, or rather unloved, friendless, or people whose way of life generally differs a bit from the home life of one's maiden great aunts etc. SFAICS this makes no difference to sentencing. And quite right too.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
Yeah, Alan Davies on Top Gear said that happened to him
To lose one Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two in the space of twenty months looks like carelessness.
Alex Allan resigned because the PM ignored his findings on Priti Patel's conduct. Lord Geidt resigned because the PM ignored his findings on the PM's own conduct.
I don't think the role is working as it should be.
To lose one Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two in the space of twenty months looks like carelessness.
Alex Allan resigned because the PM ignored his findings on Priti Patel's conduct. Lord Geidt resigned because the PM ignored his findings on the PM's own conduct.
I don't think the role is working as it should be.
They've resigned and he's still there - I think the role is working exactly as intended.
Geidt hasn't given reasons or lambasted Boris in his resignation letter? Not exactly conducive to encouraging others to follow.
Quite.
Twitter Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·20m Geidt Tuesday: "Resignation is one of the rather blunt but few tools available to the adviser. I am glad that my frustrations were addressed in the way that they were."
Geidt Wednesday: "With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post."
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·7m Senior No10 source: "We are all surprised, this is a mystery to the PM. Only on Monday Lord Geidt indicated to the PM he would like to stay on for another six months."
Beautiful evening here in south Devon. Beach Boys' Pet Sounds adding to the experience..... One of four days a year you really pretend it is California.
Wouldn't It Be Nice if our summers were longer? God Only Knows why they aren't.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines it is clear that if you are caught driving home after disqualification at your next appearance you should not only leave the car at home but take a toothbrush and teddy bear with you.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
Yeah, Alan Davies on Top Gear said that happened to him
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines it is clear that if you are caught driving home after disqualification at your next appearance you should not only leave the car at home but take a toothbrush and teddy bear with you.
Oh indeed. It’s basically a contempt of court, to do what you’ve been specifically ordered not to do. The ‘disqualified from driving’ leaflet I must still have somewhere from 2005-ish, makes this point quite clearly.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
The super-fast arrest, trial and sentence of the dickhead ‘fan’ who head butted Billy Sharp of Shef Wed is another example.
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
There was an amusing anecdote in The Secret Magistrate of a chap up for some driving offence in the morning, they saw from the window he drove off when he left (when he shouldn't have been driving), and the police picked him up and they were back in front of the same magistrates by the end of the day though.
Isn’t there always a spotter in the car park of the magistrates’ court that deals with driving offences?
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines it is clear that if you are caught driving home after disqualification at your next appearance you should not only leave the car at home but take a toothbrush and teddy bear with you.
Oh indeed. It’s basically a contempt of court, to do what you’ve been specifically ordered not to do. The ‘disqualified from driving’ leaflet I must still have somewhere from 2005-ish, makes this point quite clearly.
I quite like OGH's "claim to be". This is exactly the kind of poll result the LDs are good at generating before by-elections, including North Shropshire where they won by 15%. Odd that the markets haven't priced them down
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
I know you are besotted with this, but if you actually look at the account you cite from the top, this Ukraine government official also tweets in similar terms about talks with Trudeau, Rutte, Macron, Scholz and many other leaders throughout the globe. Which is great. But it's not all about Boris. Have a scroll down:
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
I know you are besotted with this, but if you actually look at the account you cite from the top, this Ukraine government official also tweets in similar terms about talks with Trudeau, Rutte, Macron, Scholz and many other leaders throughout the globe. Which is great. But it's not all about Boris. Have a scroll down:
That's true, but it is also true that he seems to update about communications with Boris more often than with most other leaders (there was a period in March when it seemed like they were never off the phone to one another, and we know they don't tweet about every time they talk).
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Everyone who has dealings with Boris Johnson ends up regretting it. It's only a question of when.
So the question for the Conservative payroll vote, for his defenders in the party and movement, and for the Mail/Sun/Telegraph remains what it's always been:
How much of your reputation are you prepared to sacrifice in the service of someone who despises you? Because he regards you as a stooge.
One thing that crossed my mind today, was that Boris may be a bit of a fairweather friend to Zelensky and Ukraine. If things get difficult, or popular opinion in the UK turns against the war, based on past experience he could well just abandon them. It seems like he has viewed the whole conflict in terms of the opportunity to do a Churchill style act, if this no longer works, he could well flee the scene.
Does nobody find the idea that we're going to find the individual judge's name so that they can be given abuse, really chilling?
About as chilling as the thought of justice being administered by someone whose identity is kept secret?
The idea is that justices should have their identity low profile, hence the partial reason/ tradition of the wigs and funny clothes. They analyse the law and give an interpretation. Impartiality of the judiciary is something that Britain (before it became a laughing stock with a clown for PM) gave to the world, well at least, the "free" world, and it is a tradition that was extended to Europe when we were a founder and signatory to the ECHR. Populist tossers would have judges pilloried for interpreting the bad law that has been made by a half wit government, when the real culprits are the idiots that inspired and passed the bad law or policy.
The anonymity and impersonal nature of justice should be one of its strengths. It's one of the reasons I have concerns about Restorative Justice generally, and today's idea about constantly informing victims of crime about the progress through the penal system of the perpetrator of the crime. It introduces too much "personality" and individuality into what should be a neutral process - all it will do is expand the possibility of long-held grudges and vendettas, rather than society drawing a line under the matter.
I think it was in one of the Secret Barrister's books, unpopular though they will be in many quarters for their various polemics, where they talked about there being too much emphasis on victims. They can sound harsh and cold, but people can take it too far, if for instance they think taking cases with little prospect of success to court because victims deserve a day in court as an example. Or in effect giving grieving family groups veto power over composition of public inquiries, when I would argue I have little idea what would make for a good inquiry member, particularly if I have already made up my mind abotu who is responsible. It can seem weird, but once it is a matter of public justice the wishes of the individual might be relevant, but not primary.
The justice system is increasingly a performance, designed to fulfil human needs and manage human affairs. The sentencing of Wayne Couzens was a good example of this. It is not a new thing either. The immediate jailing of the rioters in 2011 was another example, along with the Grenfell public Inquiry cited above.
Impact statements are presumably drafted by lawyers, and do/should murderers get more or less severe sentences based on the quality of the drafting?
Nah, my VPS was based on the evidence given to the rozzers, slightly updated before sentencing.
But what pisses me off is if a murder victim has parents they say, probably truthfully, child was the light of our lives, whatever happens to the perp, we have been given a life sentence without parole. What if they said x was an awkward kid who never really fitted in to the family, frankly it was a relief when they left home and their infrequent visits thereafter were always a trial? Does that affect things either way? Why should it?
I don't know if it ever really happens, but american TV shows have informed me TV news will frequently report a victim's education achievements, eg they were a straight A student. Thank goodness they were not merely a middling student I guess.
I presume therefore the convicted murderer can highlight that "my victim was an indifferent student", in sentence mitigation wherever possible.
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
I presume therefore the convicted murderer can highlight that "my victim was an indifferent student", in sentence mitigation wherever possible.
Yes, it's like those reports who say murder victim X was walking home in everydayclothes, perfectly sober, as though if X had been drunk and skimpily-clad thqat would have made the murder more understandable.
On the discussions about the justice system - there seems to be a new trend in sentencing to link the severity of the punishment with the severity of the harm caused to the victim, including things like psychological harm. Doesn't seem like a good idea. Is a crime less serious because the victim is a stoic character and wishes to simply get on with their life?
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
I know you are besotted with this, but if you actually look at the account you cite from the top, this Ukraine government official also tweets in similar terms about talks with Trudeau, Rutte, Macron, Scholz and many other leaders throughout the globe. Which is great. But it's not all about Boris. Have a scroll down:
That's true, but it is also true that he seems to update about communications with Boris more often than with most other leaders (there was a period in March when it seemed like they were never off the phone to one another, and we know they don't tweet about every time they talk).
Maybe so, but I find the UK exceptionalism pretty tiresome. The Zelensky account is keen to butter up all friendly leaders, not surprisingly. Here's a sample tweet, which I don't think WG or anybody else linked to:
Coordinated with 🇨🇦 Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau further steps to repel Russian aggression. We appreciate the new defense and financial assistance. Thank you, Justine, friend, for supporting the Ukrainian people. Cooperation between 🇺🇦 and 🇨🇦 is stronger than ever!
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
@ZelenskyyUa In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
I know you are besotted with this, but if you actually look at the account you cite from the top, this Ukraine government official also tweets in similar terms about talks with Trudeau, Rutte, Macron, Scholz and many other leaders throughout the globe. Which is great. But it's not all about Boris. Have a scroll down:
That's true, but it is also true that he seems to update about communications with Boris more often than with most other leaders (there was a period in March when it seemed like they were never off the phone to one another, and we know they don't tweet about every time they talk).
Maybe so, but I find the UK exceptionalism pretty tiresome. The Zelensky account is keen to butter up all friendly leaders, not surprisingly. Here's a sample tweet, which I don't think WG or anybody else linked to:
Coordinated with 🇨🇦 Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau further steps to repel Russian aggression. We appreciate the new defense and financial assistance. Thank you, Justine, friend, for supporting the Ukrainian people. Cooperation between 🇺🇦 and 🇨🇦 is stronger than ever!
Yes, absolutely one cannot draw from his twitter feed that we are super duper best friends, he's making sure to be friendly to most leaders (with some well chosen words for those who have been less helpful). But provided one does not try to make too much of it it is also not inaccurate to quote it either, so I don't really see what the big deal is.
Lord Geidt is just another idiot who allowed himself to be used by Boris.
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
Everyone who has dealings with Boris Johnson ends up regretting it. It's only a question of when.
So the question for the Conservative payroll vote, for his defenders in the party and movement, and for the Mail/Sun/Telegraph remains what it's always been:
How much of your reputation are you prepared to sacrifice in the service of someone who despises you? Because he regards you as a stooge.
One thing that crossed my mind today, was that Boris may be a bit of a fairweather friend to Zelensky and Ukraine. If things get difficult, or popular opinion in the UK turns against the war, based on past experience he could well just abandon them. It seems like he has viewed the whole conflict in terms of the opportunity to do a Churchill style act, if this no longer works, he could well flee the scene.
Given Boris's track record, both personal and political, I'm shocked and stunned that you could casually throw out an accusation that he "may be a bit of a fairweather friend". Libellous, that is.
On the discussions about the justice system - there seems to be a new trend in sentencing to link the severity of the punishment with the severity of the harm caused to the victim, including things like psychological harm. Doesn't seem like a good idea. Is a crime less serious because the victim is a stoic character and wishes to simply get on with their life?
Yes. Sentencing for consequences is a thing. The gulf between sentence for careless driving (fine) and death by careless driving (max 5 years) is immense. With death by careless there can't be any element of intention to do the harm, or intention to drive in a dangerous way. It's the offence we have all committed, but usually don't kill someone. But if you do......
And the 'death by' offence is new. It used not to exist. It is part of the new mindset. Understandable but wrong.
Thanks to them, next week is entirely WFH for me, hurrah for RMT.
WFH becomes ever more attractive.
Did no-one tell the RMT, that the experience of the last couple of years made pretty much every white-collar job able to WFH for weeks at a time?
Yup, no 5am alarms, I'm saving around 15 hours next week in commuting time, which boosts my productivity.
An utter win win for my firm and myself.
Yeah, but maybe this was factored in to the calculations of the RMT: WFH is popular and this may actually increase support for a long strike. Another win win!
Comments
Malc's favourite canine nourishment entrepreneur pointed out the extent of benefit to Scotland beyond the tax raised there, which numbers were for some reason not in the graphs published by Sturgeon:
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1536803385470500868https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1536803385470500868
Did you decide where next ?
One of the Stans ?
*Tapenade, to inform our Brexiters.
Love my cider. Which one is that ? We may be able to pop in.
PS Dsicovered it on a visit to the Clarks Village shopping wotsit. It's within reasonable walking distance, but one might as well take the car for obvious reasons.
And it looks like they genuinely have some claim to be the oldest wine region in the world, which is pleasing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areni-1_winery
If the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict were to restart, do you have enough of an impression to have a preferred side?
Plewnty of other goodies - fruit, cheese etc if that helps. Having a tasting is recommended - some of the scrumpies are more remiscent of the more floor-polishy malts. But there is some very good cider and perry.
A model of consistency, which is good.
The progressives now 54 was only 56 with them last time despite high labour and low Tory score, so again consistency. The time before that 54 with figures identical to todays! again consistency. The time before that 55 in figures identical to now save Lab 41.
With such consistency we can spot the outlier. By counting the progressive alliance we can spot how was a outlier, too many Lab too few Tory got in the sample.
This poll has been weighed, measured, stamped, franked, numbered, and filed in the same Dewey Decimal system Leon’s aliens come from.
Now dinner.
If it does kick off again, which i fear it might (lots of Armenians want a rematch) then I suspect the Azeris would win easily, again. The Azeris have lots of oil money, a much bigger economy, and a keen, urgent big brother in Turkey. The Armenians are much poorer and smaller, and Russia, THEIR big brother, is otherwise engaged
I’ve noticed that all the big hotels are flying Ukrainian AND Russian flags. Talk about hedging your bets. But small nations have to act like small nations, especially around here
"Where did you fly to, Sunil?" I hear you ask.
Nowhere, this time I visited Terminal 4 by Elizabeth Line! (station re-opened, er, yesterday)
Meanwhile, the independent adviser on sleaze -
Lord Geidt - has QUIT
Partygate is back folks
https://t.co/uGiMocZItu
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537128484186775553
Eyes on cabinet
This never ends.
I bet he's also pissed about the attacks on Prince Charles from this government.
The only good old big ears lives permanently in the Anfield trophy room.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
But why on earth does Boris allow this to continue? He's going to win very few seats in Scotland anyway - so why not tell Scotland that from now on they get their fair share of spending and nothing more?
The SNP spends their whole time complaining about the UK Govt and in return the UK Govt keeps handing them far more money than they deserve.
A huge fuss and vast public expense is undertaken really just for the purpose of making them feel better.
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.
Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.
Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.
Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365
He compromised himself almost immediately with wallpaper gate, lapsed into circumlocutory nonsense over partygate, and now leaves with his reputation in tatters.
(Was that Bernard Manningy enough for you? Only, I was a bit pushed for time....)
That’s normal.
The fucked up bit is the disconnect between what the *Scottish government* taxes, and what is spends. Until and unless that relationship is 1:1, it will always be cost free to blame Westminster for everything.
Relatively, I felt ok when I said 'Helping idiots and bad people mitigate their fuck ups.'
Presumably that increases the chances of a 0.5% hike by the BoE tomorrow.
So the question for the Conservative payroll vote, for his defenders in the party and movement, and for the Mail/Sun/Telegraph remains what it's always been:
How much of your reputation are you prepared to sacrifice in the service of someone who despises you? Because he regards you as a stooge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I7doqtpDq8
Make the system appear far more efficient than it actually is.
If any of us got head butted that night, the perpetrator would not have faced trial yet
I met a British couple in Yerevan the other night, and we had a nice drink. The guy was half Italian, early 50s, modest but amiable stockbroker. We talked about kids, and after a few vinos he revealed he had two MORE kids from a prior marriage, now in their late 20s, except, he said, “I haven’t seen them for 3 years because they just don’t like me”
He seemed entirely inoffensive: intelligent, quite charming, polite. Yet his older kids won’t see him or speak to him?
Who knows what the real backstory is. Families are so opaque to outsiders
The news is dominated by Rwanda and the rail strikes and I doubt the resignation of civil servant will register amongst ordinary voters
To think he could have been the trigger to Boris's resignation/ loss of office
There were rumours the Fed were looking at the full percentage point, which would have tied the BoE up in knots tomorrow.
(I know I know, that's a side gig).
I had to go there once, for speeding, and made a point of getting a lift in case I wasn’t allowed to drive out. Good call, as it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSz40oruayo
(After 4:10 if you're interested)
Alex Allan resigned because the PM ignored his findings on Priti Patel's conduct.
Lord Geidt resigned because the PM ignored his findings on the PM's own conduct.
I don't think the role is working as it should be.
Twitter
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·20m
Geidt Tuesday: "Resignation is one of the rather blunt but few tools available to the adviser. I am glad that my frustrations were addressed in the way that they were."
Geidt Wednesday: "With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post."
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·7m
Senior No10 source: "We are all surprised, this is a mystery to the PM. Only on Monday Lord Geidt indicated to the PM he would like to stay on for another six months."
In constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Coordinated positions on the eve of important international events. Discussed the situation on the battlefield, Ukraine's defense needs and threats to food security.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1537137470567071748
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa
He was very angry with the saboteurs yesterday.
He is here for the long haul. He will retain one of the two by elections.
Thanks to them, next week is entirely WFH for me, hurrah for RMT.
WFH becomes ever more attractive.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/15/russia-rakes-in-nearly-20bn-from-oil-exports-in-may
Coordinated with 🇨🇦 Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau further steps to repel Russian aggression. We appreciate the new defense and financial assistance. Thank you, Justine, friend, for supporting the Ukrainian people. Cooperation between 🇺🇦 and 🇨🇦 is stronger than ever!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/12/winston-churchills-eccentric-working-habits-revealed-in-rare-papers
An utter win win for my firm and myself.
And the 'death by' offence is new. It used not to exist. It is part of the new mindset. Understandable but wrong.