IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
A total increase of over 250k during the last four years.
If the Conservatives were more competent and less self-obsessed then they would be shouting about this at every opportunity.
They should be measuring outputs rather than inputs.
What are all these new staff doing - how many are clinicians, how many take workload off clinicians, and how many are administrators aimlessly pushing papers among themselves?
The NHS actually has a low ratio of administrators to staff. It has been suggested, by experts in organisation efficiency, that this pushes admin work onto the medical staff. Which frustrates the staff and slows everything down.
The Giant NHS IT projects that failed so miserably were an attempt at a top down fix of this. What is needed is a bottom up approach - systems designed to work together, but small pieces of the puzzle. The main thing is inter-compatibility of the data.
My wife and I have recently had the opportunity to experience the NHS close up thanks to a miscarriage (we hope(!) - back in for a scan today as her HCG levels aren't quite behaving as expected, so it's possibly an ectopic instead) , and it's a strange beast. Staff have been great, no problem getting appointments, indeed the follow up has been very good. On the other hand - trying to navigate a large busy hospital with inconsistent signage and a very stressed slightly distressed wife was not fun (most of the relevant departments seem to trade under "less distressing" names - eg she had an ultrasound in the "Jasmine suit", but the appointment information referenced the "early pregnancy unit" which wasn't to be found anywhere). The really annoying stuff is things like having to go in person to the doctors to collect a stack of A4 sheets of paper they had printed to hand in at the blood test clinic - could they just be emailed for us to print? System says no. The basics are goood, it just seems there are a lot of small things which could be so much better for little or no effort or cost.
I find hospitals quite stressful for this reason (I'm the kind of person who has a map out when I'm in a foreign city).
I was released from A&E in Edinburgh just after a load of morphine and ended up wandering around the hospital for about an hour. Walked through a maternity ward and my friends eventually found me wandering around a car park, topless and in a sling.
My girlfriend works there and regularly comes across patients in completely the wrong place. Some of the departments aren't internally accessible so you have to walk around the perimeter. Was built in 2003.
The QA in Portsmouth is impossible to navigate around. Even the staff dion't know where wards are and the signage is wrong. I had to pick my friend up following an operation, he was in the discharge ward. It took me 90 minutes to find it, none of the staff knew where it was. It ended up being on the 2nd floor about 900 metres from the entrance and 1200 metres from the car park. An ideal location for a discharge ward.
The thing I have noticed about some modern hospitals, is that the layout is often terrible - long, long distances to walk.
Surely tower blocks make more sense? A simple layout for each floor, big lifts...
In the event of a fire the lifts cannot be used, so who will carry umpteen patients (and possibly beds) down 20 flights of stairs. (Or maybe today there can be AI-powered lifts that know to skip floors on fire.)
There are plenty of 10 floor hospitals out there - what are their plans?
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
Like you, I detest the List System which removes the choice of MP from voters to party machines - just like FPTP.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, as in Ireland, puts the choice squarely in the hands of the voter. Candidates from the the same party have to compete with one another. The geographical link is maintained. And the results are broadly proportional.
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
You seem remarkably unaware that there are different forms of PR
Perhaps you can name any one specific example that doesn't result in safe seats?
STV giving a safe seat to each party doesn't eliminate safe seats, it reinforces them.
STV doesn't give safe seats to candidates. Candidates from the same party have to compete with one another. Hardly safe. The fact that a party that has say 30% of the vote in a five member constituency is guaranteed to get a seat is not a problem, it is a benefit.
In Richmond upon Thames, at the last local elections, under FPTP, the Tories got nearly 25% of the vote and just one seat out of 52! (And he is 92 years old.)
It is a LibDem monopoly - a ridiculous consequence of FPTP. Surely you will agree?
Sortition is the way to go. Never mind the single transferable vote, let's have the single vote.
At every election, one vote is procured from a hat at random, and it is the casting vote. So if 25% of people in a constituency vote Conservative, there is a 25% chance of a Conservative being elected.
Removes the idea of a "safe" seat, gives everyone a chance at getting the representative they want (what do you do if you're a Conservative voter in a seat like Bootle? Your vote simply doensn't count). And importantly, averaged out across the whole country, you get something that's fairly representative of the national vote, so you do get something that looks like proportional representation
However you also need to still keep some constituency MPs, otherwise MPs solely elected by region have very little connection to communities within it
STV constituencies can be quite compact, rather than 'regions'. Leeds, for example, could be a 5-seat constituency and the MPs would be answerable to voters across the city.
But in rural areas like Shropshire and Herefordshire you might have just one constituency for the whole area. You'd only have compact constituencies in a few big cities.
Rural areas are geographically bigger, that's already the case. STV constituencies can still retain local ties, eg, as in your examples, covering a single county or local government area.
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
I really enjoy the occasional classical history reports from you and a few others on this Site. Please do not ever think they are not appreciated.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
Given that the God of the Hebrews endorsed a genocide of the Canaanites, not sure I would want him judge of humanity.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
If the charge is dropped, then she's not guilty of the charge surely?
She didn't plead guilty to anything in the Magistrates Court as all charges before the Magistrates Court were dropped.
How can the Judge reasonably hold against someone the fact they did not plead guilty to any charges at Magistrates Court when every charge before the Magistrates Court has been dropped?
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
I really enjoy the occasional classical history reports from you and a few others on this Site. Please do not ever think they are not appreciated.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
No, he wasn't 'required' to impose a custodial sentence. As noted in his remarks, there are no sentencing guidelines for this particular offence.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
I agree. Unless one is asked by the Defence to write a character reference for a Defendant at sentencing, one should certainly not be taking it upon oneself to write to the judge about what sentence he should hand down.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
A total increase of over 250k during the last four years.
If the Conservatives were more competent and less self-obsessed then they would be shouting about this at every opportunity.
They should be measuring outputs rather than inputs.
What are all these new staff doing - how many are clinicians, how many take workload off clinicians, and how many are administrators aimlessly pushing papers among themselves?
The NHS actually has a low ratio of administrators to staff. It has been suggested, by experts in organisation efficiency, that this pushes admin work onto the medical staff. Which frustrates the staff and slows everything down.
The Giant NHS IT projects that failed so miserably were an attempt at a top down fix of this. What is needed is a bottom up approach - systems designed to work together, but small pieces of the puzzle. The main thing is inter-compatibility of the data.
My wife and I have recently had the opportunity to experience the NHS close up thanks to a miscarriage (we hope(!) - back in for a scan today as her HCG levels aren't quite behaving as expected, so it's possibly an ectopic instead) , and it's a strange beast. Staff have been great, no problem getting appointments, indeed the follow up has been very good. On the other hand - trying to navigate a large busy hospital with inconsistent signage and a very stressed slightly distressed wife was not fun (most of the relevant departments seem to trade under "less distressing" names - eg she had an ultrasound in the "Jasmine suit", but the appointment information referenced the "early pregnancy unit" which wasn't to be found anywhere). The really annoying stuff is things like having to go in person to the doctors to collect a stack of A4 sheets of paper they had printed to hand in at the blood test clinic - could they just be emailed for us to print? System says no. The basics are goood, it just seems there are a lot of small things which could be so much better for little or no effort or cost.
I find hospitals quite stressful for this reason (I'm the kind of person who has a map out when I'm in a foreign city).
I was released from A&E in Edinburgh just after a load of morphine and ended up wandering around the hospital for about an hour. Walked through a maternity ward and my friends eventually found me wandering around a car park, topless and in a sling.
My girlfriend works there and regularly comes across patients in completely the wrong place. Some of the departments aren't internally accessible so you have to walk around the perimeter. Was built in 2003.
The QA in Portsmouth is impossible to navigate around. Even the staff dion't know where wards are and the signage is wrong. I had to pick my friend up following an operation, he was in the discharge ward. It took me 90 minutes to find it, none of the staff knew where it was. It ended up being on the 2nd floor about 900 metres from the entrance and 1200 metres from the car park. An ideal location for a discharge ward.
The thing I have noticed about some modern hospitals, is that the layout is often terrible - long, long distances to walk.
Surely tower blocks make more sense? A simple layout for each floor, big lifts...
In the event of a fire the lifts cannot be used, so who will carry umpteen patients (and possibly beds) down 20 flights of stairs. (Or maybe today there can be AI-powered lifts that know to skip floors on fire.)
There are plenty of 10 floor hospitals out there - what are their plans?
No idea. Just have vague memories of a public information film (probably) about a hospital fire from some decades back. Maybe they have ramps. Maybe these days lifts do know to bypass floors on fire.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
Like you, I detest the List System which removes the choice of MP from voters to party machines - just like FPTP.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, as in Ireland, puts the choice squarely in the hands of the voter. Candidates from the the same party have to compete with one another. The geographical link is maintained. And the results are broadly proportional.
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
You seem remarkably unaware that there are different forms of PR
Perhaps you can name any one specific example that doesn't result in safe seats?
STV giving a safe seat to each party doesn't eliminate safe seats, it reinforces them.
STV doesn't give safe seats to candidates. Candidates from the same party have to compete with one another. Hardly safe. The fact that a party that has say 30% of the vote in a five member constituency is guaranteed to get a seat is not a problem, it is a benefit.
In Richmond upon Thames, at the last local elections, under FPTP, the Tories got nearly 25% of the vote and just one seat out of 52! (And he is 92 years old.)
It is a LibDem monopoly - a ridiculous consequence of FPTP. Surely you will agree?
Sortition is the way to go. Never mind the single transferable vote, let's have the single vote.
At every election, one vote is procured from a hat at random, and it is the casting vote. So if 25% of people in a constituency vote Conservative, there is a 25% chance of a Conservative being elected.
Removes the idea of a "safe" seat, gives everyone a chance at getting the representative they want (what do you do if you're a Conservative voter in a seat like Bootle? Your vote simply doensn't count). And importantly, averaged out across the whole country, you get something that's fairly representative of the national vote, so you do get something that looks like proportional representation
However you also need to still keep some constituency MPs, otherwise MPs solely elected by region have very little connection to communities within it
STV constituencies can be quite compact, rather than 'regions'. Leeds, for example, could be a 5-seat constituency and the MPs would be answerable to voters across the city.
But in rural areas like Shropshire and Herefordshire you might have just one constituency for the whole area. You'd only have compact constituencies in a few big cities.
Rural areas are geographically bigger, that's already the case. STV constituencies can still retain local ties, eg, as in your examples, covering a single county or local government area.
Also, in Ireland, where a party has more than one candidate for a seat, and often with independents too, particularly for larger rural constituencies, the candidates will tend to concentrate on different areas within the whole. So you often find candidates emerging as local champions of a subset of a constituency.
My constituency is Cork South West, which stretches from the tips of the Beara and Mizen peninsulas to Kinsale to the south of Cork city. I would hazard a guess that self-styled "Goleen TD" Michael Collins has a higher level of support in the west of the constituency than the east.
If particularly local connections are important to voters then they can vote for candidates who present themselves accordingly.
This abortion case is deeply troubling to me. A tragic situation and I really don't think this mother of three should be facing jail. She was put in a desperate situation by circumstances beyond her control, including the breakdown in fertility and contraception services during lockdown - which have still not recovered, incidentally. And let's not forget, the government's two child welfare policies are very much a part of the pressures that have led to this tragedy.
They probably have a broader offer than does the UK these days. Certainly way stronger in ships, non nuke submarines, armoured vehicles and (possibly) defence electronics.
And they can deliver aircraft faster and cheaper.
Their KDX-III destroyers are quite something with 128 VLS tubes (with air, surface and submarine missiles), 6 x torpedo tubes, 5" gun and multiple CIWS. Proper war canoe.
Selling the KF-21 to the Saudis must be the goal for the Koreans (if the US will let them).
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
I think he means specific ones, as opposed to principles which apply to all offences?
Ben Elliott is also the nephew of the King and Queen Consort.
Nephew of both of them?
I knew that European Royalty is very incestuous, but I didn't realise they were that closely related.
Count his fingers!
I believe Anne Boleyn had an extra finger though of course that gene would have died out with QEI.
Not necessarily in that Anne Boleyn had various relatives including siblings (her brother, who was heir and presumably some threat to Henry was executed at the same time as Anne, and a couple of others died young - but I think her elder sister had several children).
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
And/or the Christian squaddies were being flexible. (I sometimes wonder how Jewish sailors coped with life in the old Royal Navy, with all the salt pork.)
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
I think he means specific ones, as opposed to principles which apply to all offences?
I'd be very curious if there's any principle that applies to all offences that even if all charges that were before the Magistrates Court are dropped, that it will still be held against you if you didn't plead guilty at the Magistrates Court.
Seems to go completely against all logic and natural justice. And again, it seems the experts on the BBC are confused by this too.
I'd love to see it written down in any guidelines anywhere that it should be held against anyone for not pleading guilty to a crime they are never ultimately convicted of. IANAL but I am extraordinarily sceptical that is in any guideline, any where.
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
Like you, I detest the List System which removes the choice of MP from voters to party machines - just like FPTP.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, as in Ireland, puts the choice squarely in the hands of the voter. Candidates from the the same party have to compete with one another. The geographical link is maintained. And the results are broadly proportional.
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
Like you, I detest the List System which removes the choice of MP from voters and gives it to party machines - just like FPTP.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, as in Ireland, puts the choice squarely in the hands of the voter. Candidates from the the same party have to compete with one another. The geographical link is maintained. And the results are broadly proportional.
Research it. You might be pleasantly surprised.
And each major party is pretty much guaranteed a seat in each constituency, so if you're the parties top representative in the area then you've pretty much got a seat for life.
In the UK major politicians like Michael Portillo can be ejected by the electorate. Had Boris Johnson not resigned he'd have probably been rejected from Uxbridge next time too.
Whereas in Ireland someone like Portillo or Boris can have enough votes from their own party to have a safe seat and who cares that most of the local electorate wanted somebody else?
Undrrt STV, almost all of the local electorate will get someone they want, unlike now under FPTP.
Under STV there isn't a "Party top representative" guaranteed a seat. The candidates from that party have to compete against each other and the local electors have the last say.
This abortion case is deeply troubling to me. A tragic situation and I really don't think this mother of three should be facing jail. She was put in a desperate situation by circumstances beyond her control, including the breakdown in fertility and contraception services during lockdown - which have still not recovered, incidentally. And let's not forget, the government's two child welfare policies are very much a part of the pressures that have led to this tragedy.
It's a horrific case. Two years suspended would be appropriate given the circs here I think - her sentence would be more appropriate for a doctor terminating at such a late stage. The trauma will likely be with her longer than her sentence.
Ben Elliott is also the nephew of the King and Queen Consort.
Nephew of both of them?
I knew that European Royalty is very incestuous, but I didn't realise they were that closely related.
Count his fingers!
I believe Anne Boleyn had an extra finger though of course that gene would have died out with QEI.
Not necessarily in that Anne Boleyn had various relatives including siblings (her brother, who was heir and presumably some threat to Henry was executed at the same time as Anne, and a couple of others died young - but I think her elder sister had several children).
According to Wikipedia, unless I've bungled a step, this chap appears to be descended from Mary Boleyn, sister to Anne and Aunt to QEI.
The yield on two-year gilts has jumped to 4.73% - passing levels seen after Liz Truss's mini-budget - highest since 2008
More pain may be coming as markets digest the thought of even higher BOE rates...
I remember a time when the news that "the total number of people in work rising to its highest level ever in the three months to April." was a good thing. Apparently now that is bad news.
What ever happened to the the economic crash everyone was expecting this spring/summer?
Full employment and high pay rises for the low paid:
The rise in the minimum wage had had a "significant" impact on the April pay figures, said Andrew Hunter, co-founder of the job search engine Adzuna.
The minimum wage - known as the National Living Wage - rose to £10.42 an hour in April for those aged 23 and over.
"Nearly two million workers in the UK saw an almost 10% increase in pay this spring," Mr Hunter told the BBC's Today programme.
"What we're seeing is some signs of optimism from British employers during what is often a time of year where discussions around pay and bonuses are had. So we are seeing wage improvements."
The Chinese appear to have a grasp of semantics similar to that if Boris.
I always wonder about this.
I mean, if you asked anyone... anyone in the world....
"Would you rather live in a country:
a) That respected the rule of law, had democratic institutions, and you had a say in the running of the country and relative freedom to go where you wanted and do what you wanted; OR b) That told you what to do and think for every minute of your life and you had no chance of ever being asked your own opinions."
How many people would truthfully answer (b)?
(There would be some of course. Some people do want to be told what to do - but it'd be no where near a majority)
This abortion case is deeply troubling to me. A tragic situation and I really don't think this mother of three should be facing jail. She was put in a desperate situation by circumstances beyond her control, including the breakdown in fertility and contraception services during lockdown - which have still not recovered, incidentally. And let's not forget, the government's two child welfare policies are very much a part of the pressures that have led to this tragedy.
Hard to be certain, but I reckon she went past 24 weeks pre-lockdown:
Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
And/or the Christian squaddies were being flexible. (I sometimes wonder how Jewish sailors coped with life in the old Royal Navy, with all the salt pork.)
In the age of sail there was generally a variety of livestock on board and very small number of Jewish sailors (I would guess) so probably not an issue.
Sailors, being somewhat superstitious and sentimental about everything except human beings, did sometimes get attached to these animals and refuse to slaughter them. The job of keeping the poultry had to be rotated very frequently for this reason. I recall learning at BRNC about a particularly cherished pig that was fed so much it died of obesity off the coast of China.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
This abortion case is deeply troubling to me. A tragic situation and I really don't think this mother of three should be facing jail. She was put in a desperate situation by circumstances beyond her control, including the breakdown in fertility and contraception services during lockdown - which have still not recovered, incidentally. And let's not forget, the government's two child welfare policies are very much a part of the pressures that have led to this tragedy.
Hard to be certain, but I reckon she went past 24 weeks pre-lockdown:
Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.
Yes, the pandemic restrictions simply gave her the opportunity to commit the offence. She knew exactly what she was doing, which is reflected in the custodial sentence imposed.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
The charges that were filed at the Magistrates stage were subsequently dropped. How is it then her responsibility to plead guilty at Magistrates to charges that were never filed at that stage?
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
This abortion case is deeply troubling to me. A tragic situation and I really don't think this mother of three should be facing jail. She was put in a desperate situation by circumstances beyond her control, including the breakdown in fertility and contraception services during lockdown - which have still not recovered, incidentally. And let's not forget, the government's two child welfare policies are very much a part of the pressures that have led to this tragedy.
Hard to be certain, but I reckon she went past 24 weeks pre-lockdown:
Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.
Yes, the pandemic restrictions simply gave her the opportunity to commit the offence. She knew exactly what she was doing, which is reflected in the custodial sentence imposed.
Would be interested to see how this vote would go if it was voted on today:
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Suspect including 2022 would give a rather different picture:
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The country at the top of that table is now in recession, partly as a result of its dependence on exports...
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Suspect including 2022 would give a rather different picture:
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The country at the top of that table is now in recession, partly as a result of its dependence on exports...
Here you are William...have another straw to cling to. By the way, you were right. That is when you used to believe Brexit was a dumb idea.
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
And/or the Christian squaddies were being flexible. (I sometimes wonder how Jewish sailors coped with life in the old Royal Navy, with all the salt pork.)
In the age of sail there was generally a variety of livestock on board and very small number of Jewish sailors (I would guess) so probably not an issue.
Sailors, being somewhat superstitious and sentimental about everything except human beings, did sometimes get attached to these animals and refuse to slaughter them. The job of keeping the poultry had to be rotated very frequently for this reason. I recall learning at BRNC about a particularly cherished pig that was fed so much it died of obesity off the coast of China.
Tom Baker's father was supposedly a Jewish sailor from Liverpool, although he's always been very cagey about that due to having an ardently religious Catholic mother, and for a while training to be a Catholic priest.
A colourful life in general, it can safely be said..
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
Arguably, the CPS should have pressed on with the original, more serious, charge. But they have to consider what's in the public interest.
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
But she's not guilty of anything before the Magistrates Court. Indeed from the Judgment her lawyers had suggested the alternative charge before it even reached the Magistrates Court and the CPS had rejected it at that stage. You're wrong in saying that the idea came from her lawyer at the crown court, the judgment says the polar opposite, that it came in the notes for the Magistrates hearing.
So because the CPS screwed up and put the wrong charge before the Magistrates, thus denying her the opportunity to plead guilty to the right charge, she should be penalised for that?
Its the CPS's responsibility to put the right charge or charges before the Magistrates. Every charge before the Magistrates was dropped. Onus on that goes to the CPS, not her.
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
And/or the Christian squaddies were being flexible. (I sometimes wonder how Jewish sailors coped with life in the old Royal Navy, with all the salt pork.)
In the age of sail there was generally a variety of livestock on board and very small number of Jewish sailors (I would guess) so probably not an issue.
Sailors, being somewhat superstitious and sentimental about everything except human beings, did sometimes get attached to these animals and refuse to slaughter them. The job of keeping the poultry had to be rotated very frequently for this reason. I recall learning at BRNC about a particularly cherished pig that was fed so much it died of obesity off the coast of China.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Suspect including 2022 would give a rather different picture:
I make that +31.8% for 2012-2022.
Knock a couple of percentage points off for big gas exports in 2022, and it's a wash.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
Given that the God of the Hebrews endorsed a genocide of the Canaanites, not sure I would want him judge of humanity.
To a non fundamentalist liberal Christian I think that would be self evident.
IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'
That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.
I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.
Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
^ this.
If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.
It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,
If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family
We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.
I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.
He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.
Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam
PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.
Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.
So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?
Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
Jesus was a socialist.
He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.
Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.
I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.
According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.
He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.
Which is very much political.
His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.
Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.
Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.
People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.
To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.
I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.
Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.
Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.
Pagan Rome had no interest in belief. What the authorities were extremely interested in was that the Gods be honoured, and the correct rituals be performed, because they believed, entirely sincerely, that calamity would befall if this was not done. So, no you were not free at all to opt out of doing this, and that's why they persecuted the Christians, and some other sects. They didn't care whether Christians privately worshipped Christ as another deity. They cared enormously that Christians would not give the official Gods their proper honour and respect. As they saw it, the calamities of the Third Century were entirely down to the fact that this sect of wretched atheists were increasing in number.
Constantine himself, hedged his bets. He patronised Christianity, but remained a pagan, until he was dying.
Of course, the state gods included such things as the legionary and auxiliary standards, and the Emperors, either directly (posthumously) or through some abstraction (I forget the details). Very close to home or rather the imperial power.
There was a curious event called the Miracle of the Rains, in 173. A Roman legion was cut off in what is now Czechia, and short of water, surrounded by enemies. A sudden thunder storm not only provided them with water, but so discomfited their enemies that they were able to break free.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
And/or the Christian squaddies were being flexible. (I sometimes wonder how Jewish sailors coped with life in the old Royal Navy, with all the salt pork.)
The armed forces can be a good place to escape persecution, because officers are often willing to turn a blind eye to all sorts of infractions, so long as soldiers and sailors are good at their jobs. Some Jews took refuge in the German armed forces, under the Nazis, prompting Goering to declare "I decide who is a Jew."
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
Arguably, the CPS should have pressed on with the original, more serious, charge. But they have to consider what's in the public interest.
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
If the CPS changes charges, for whatever reason and those new charges are pled guilty to at the earliest opportunity then the discount should be pasu with the original discount had the accused pled guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
Arguably, the CPS should have pressed on with the original, more serious, charge. But they have to consider what's in the public interest.
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
If the CPS changes charges, for whatever reason and those new charges are pled guilty to at the earliest opportunity then the discount should be pasu with the original discount had the accused pled guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Precisely.
Its not possible to plead guilty to a charge before the CPS files those charges. If the CPS changes charges then the earliest opportunity is whenever the change happens, not before that.
If the CPS doesn't want that discount to apply, it shouldn't change charges and should proceed to trial, but it didn't.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
But she's not guilty of anything before the Magistrates Court. Indeed from the Judgment her lawyers had suggested the alternative charge before it even reached the Magistrates Court and the CPS had rejected it at that stage. You're wrong in saying that the idea came from her lawyer at the crown court, the judgment says the polar opposite, that it came in the notes for the Magistrates hearing.
So because the CPS screwed up and put the wrong charge before the Magistrates, thus denying her the opportunity to plead guilty to the right charge, she should be penalised for that?
Its the CPS's responsibility to put the right charge or charges before the Magistrates. Every charge before the Magistrates was dropped. Onus on that goes to the CPS, not her.
No, it wasn’t a CPS mistake. The process of replacing the charge was initiated by her lawyer at the start of the trial, and accepted by the judge.
A rough equivalent would be a suspect charged with murder, pleads not guilty at the magistrates and is sent to crown court for trial. On day 1 of the trial, her lawyer suggests that she would plead guilty to manslaughter, and the judge decides to either accept that plea and adjourn for sentencing, or proceed with the trial as planned. Either way, the prosecution turns up at the crown court with a lot of work already done, and the judge has to decide on the best course of action in the interests of justice.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
The sentencing guidelines for the reduction in sentence to be applied for a guilty plea. Those apply to all offences. So, although the judge was on his own in determining sentence, he was required to follow the guidelines on the reduction to be applied for a guilty plea.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
Question - how is 616 crossing in small boats yesterday the fault of Keir Starmer? "Labour oppose a crackdown" - what, the current crackdown which saw 616 arrive in one day?
The comedy with the Daily Blackshirt isn't what they write - its a business. Its the people who see that front page and think "how awful, I must pay £1 and read all about this"
Well the front page alone has convinced me to vote this current Labour government presiding of this mess and put in a Conservative one to sort these things out.
I bought the Mail on Sunday and report back it is far far better value for money than the Sunday telegraph I bought two weeks ago. This is not a political point I’m making, just as a read it was far better value. Barely mentioned Trans.
They probably have a broader offer than does the UK these days. Certainly way stronger in ships, non nuke submarines, armoured vehicles and (possibly) defence electronics.
And they can deliver aircraft faster and cheaper.
Their KDX-III destroyers are quite something with 128 VLS tubes (with air, surface and submarine missiles), 6 x torpedo tubes, 5" gun and multiple CIWS. Proper war canoe.
Selling the KF-21 to the Saudis must be the goal for the Koreans (if the US will let them).
And now planning to build their own domestic technology version of Aegis for the KDDX, just as they developing their own AESA radar for the KF21, after buying Israeli kit for the FA-50.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
But she's not guilty of anything before the Magistrates Court. Indeed from the Judgment her lawyers had suggested the alternative charge before it even reached the Magistrates Court and the CPS had rejected it at that stage. You're wrong in saying that the idea came from her lawyer at the crown court, the judgment says the polar opposite, that it came in the notes for the Magistrates hearing.
So because the CPS screwed up and put the wrong charge before the Magistrates, thus denying her the opportunity to plead guilty to the right charge, she should be penalised for that?
Its the CPS's responsibility to put the right charge or charges before the Magistrates. Every charge before the Magistrates was dropped. Onus on that goes to the CPS, not her.
No, it wasn’t a CPS mistake. The process of replacing the charge was initiated by her lawyer at the start of the trial, and accepted by the judge.
A rough equivalent would be a suspect charged with murder, pleads not guilty at the magistrates and is sent to crown court for trial. On day 1 of the trial, her lawyer suggests that she would plead guilty to manslaughter, and the judge decides to either accept that plea and adjourn for sentencing, or proceed with the trial as planned. Either way, the prosecution turns up at the crown court with a lot of work already done, and the judge has to decide on the best course of action in the interests of justice.
If the CPS agrees to a manslaughter plea when that was never filed before the Magistrates then that is surely the earliest opportunity, since they never charged with manslaughter in the first place.
If the CPS wishes to continue with a murder charge then that's their choice, but the first opportunity is when the charge is filed and if its not been filed and pled to then its not been filed.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
The sentencing guidelines for the reduction in sentence to be applied for a guilty plea. Those apply to all offences. So, although the judge was on his own in determining sentence, he was required to follow the guidelines on the reduction to be applied for a guilty plea.
Where in the sentencing guidelines to be applied for a guilty plea does it say you should be penalised for pleading not guilty to a crime you are never convicted of?
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
Arguably, the CPS should have pressed on with the original, more serious, charge. But they have to consider what's in the public interest.
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
I think the issue is the judge seems to be implying that she wouldn't have got a custodial sentence if she had pleaded guilty in the first place to the original charge. But the judge's remarks here are quite unclear.
"24.For the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, I sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. Among the many tragedies in this case is that you did not indicate your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the magistrates’ court. Had that been done, the sentence of imprisonment that I am now obliged to pass would in law have been capable of being suspended."
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
No, he wasn't 'required' to impose a custodial sentence. As noted in his remarks, there are no sentencing guidelines for this particular offence.
I didn't say he was required to impose a custodial sentence. However, whilst there are no guidelines for this particular offence, there are guidelines on the reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. These guidelines apply regardless of the offence. That is what I was referring to. She did not indicate in the magistrates' court that she would plead guilty if charged with the lesser offence, so she gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
It's a bit naughty to exclude 2022.
Why, did they include it for the other G7 countries?
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
On topic, I wonder if Sunak is thinking to himself 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.'
If I have interpreted your one sentence correctly Eagles, I think you are right. I think there is a touch of immature political naivety from Sunak in this, that all the Labour and Lib Dem’s just won’t get at all, because they are loving it soooo much.
It’s coming across a bit like attacking and denigrating Boris and his supporters publicly, perhaps the smarter politics is not to be drawn into saying negatives about “your own” so publicly?
The difference between Nadine and all the other useless dicks and fanny Sunak himself will appoint is Rishi’s toads and sycophants don’t have a show called “Friday Night Nads” where guests are frequently asked “Rishi Sunak, not really all that great is he?” Other than that, with her years in public service, Member of parliament, government, nursing and health, Nadine is as much qualified for a contribution to the House of Lords than the majority of Sunakite toads and donors to life peers Sunak will go on and appoint.
So let’s stop saying it was an independent committee decision to reject her, and not Sunak’s, that piece of blatant spin is now clearly blatant lies - especially if Sunak is accepting the credit for his brave and Primeministerial foot down against the Johnson Fan Club! It’s the Primeministers decision at end of day, not committee, especially as it’s a mere obscure admin error for committee to say no, not anything serious easily worked round.
The bottom line is, Sunak and team have created the fight.
Not being a Boris or Nadine fan, I’m absolutely loving it - it is very very funny, but that is exactly the BIG MISTAKE SUNAK HAS MADE - he shouldn’t be obviously loving it himself or even playing this game on side of those who have had it up to the eyebrows with Boris and his coterie, all are ABSOLUTELY LOVING what Rishi has done - 100% of Labour and opposition loving it, 210% of Chris Bryant loving it, Guardian and Mirror etc can barely get there smugness out for loving it so much - but the Conservative Party is supposed to be a broad church and appointments to Lords should be on a basis of some worthiness, not ripping up precedent just to win a bit of oneupmanship in personality politics, as Rishi Sunak has done.
So I disagree with Mikes opinion piece, I think in the bigger picture this is a political error from Number 10, and I have quite conclusive evidence for that view in how the Mail and Express in particular are relaying this narrative from being on Boris side. I would say to Mike Smithson this could be just like a budget, popular for a few days before bad politics in it starts to unravel, for to put The Mail and others in position to take sides in what is factional and personality politics, is an unforced error for a PM.
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
But she's not guilty of anything before the Magistrates Court. Indeed from the Judgment her lawyers had suggested the alternative charge before it even reached the Magistrates Court and the CPS had rejected it at that stage. You're wrong in saying that the idea came from her lawyer at the crown court, the judgment says the polar opposite, that it came in the notes for the Magistrates hearing.
So because the CPS screwed up and put the wrong charge before the Magistrates, thus denying her the opportunity to plead guilty to the right charge, she should be penalised for that?
Its the CPS's responsibility to put the right charge or charges before the Magistrates. Every charge before the Magistrates was dropped. Onus on that goes to the CPS, not her.
No, it wasn’t a CPS mistake. The process of replacing the charge was initiated by her lawyer at the start of the trial, and accepted by the judge.
A rough equivalent would be a suspect charged with murder, pleads not guilty at the magistrates and is sent to crown court for trial. On day 1 of the trial, her lawyer suggests that she would plead guilty to manslaughter, and the judge decides to either accept that plea and adjourn for sentencing, or proceed with the trial as planned. Either way, the prosecution turns up at the crown court with a lot of work already done, and the judge has to decide on the best course of action in the interests of justice.
If the CPS agrees to a manslaughter plea when that was never filed before the Magistrates then that is surely the earliest opportunity, since they never charged with manslaughter in the first place.
If the CPS wishes to continue with a murder charge then that's their choice, but the first opportunity is when the charge is filed and if its not been filed and pled to then its not been filed.
It doesn’t work like that though. The legal work was all done for the crown court trial, and the discount on her sentence is therefore 20%.
If the CPS had decided to drop one charge and initiate another, it would be a different matter - but the substitution of the charge was initiated by the defence team, in exchange for the 20% discount in sentence.
Her only opportunity for a suspended sentence, was to have pled guilty to the original charge at the magistrates’ court, and then put forward her mitigating arguments at sentencing - which would have saved a considerable amount of time and money.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
The Mail's hatred of Sir Keir is off the charts. Why? I don't remember them being this hostile to Blair or even Corbyn, and certainly not Brown, for whom Dacre had a significant soft spot. Deep down I suspect it's all about Boris - Sir Keir is a mere projection for all the disappointment Boris brought them but which is just too painful to acknowledge.
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
It's a bit naughty to exclude 2022.
Why, did they include it for the other G7 countries?
2021 is still including COVID which had particularly tight lockdowns in the UK. The Guardian has form for selectively highlight statistics. Also currency devaluations usually result in S-curve export profiles, declining initially then recovering and overtaking previous performance.
Grassley had quite a bit to say about Biden in the Senate yesterday, using their version of Parliamentary Privilege to disclose what the FBI had redacted in a key document they put before the committee regarding Barisma.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
The sentencing guidelines for the reduction in sentence to be applied for a guilty plea. Those apply to all offences. So, although the judge was on his own in determining sentence, he was required to follow the guidelines on the reduction to be applied for a guilty plea.
Where in the sentencing guidelines to be applied for a guilty plea does it say you should be penalised for pleading not guilty to a crime you are never convicted of?
She could have indicated to the magistrates that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
If I am charged with murder and plead not guilty in the magistrates' court but then, at trial, plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, I will receive less of a reduction in sentence than if I had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first place. That is exactly what has happened here. She could have, in the magistrates' court, pleaded not guilty to child destruction but indicated that she would plead guilty to the less serious offence. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
The Mail's hatred of Sir Keir is off the charts. Why? I don't remember them being this hostile to Blair or even Corbyn, and certainly not Brown, for whom Dacre had a significant soft spot. Deep down I suspect it's all about Boris - Sir Keir is a mere projection for all the disappointment Boris brought them but which is just too painful to acknowledge.
What's your desire for the media landscape in the UK, that all the newspapers sprinkle rose petals at Sir Keir's feet? Some papers are for him, some against him - I don't see the issue.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
The sentencing guidelines for the reduction in sentence to be applied for a guilty plea. Those apply to all offences. So, although the judge was on his own in determining sentence, he was required to follow the guidelines on the reduction to be applied for a guilty plea.
Where in the sentencing guidelines to be applied for a guilty plea does it say you should be penalised for pleading not guilty to a crime you are never convicted of?
She could have indicated to the magistrates that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
If I am charged with murder and plead not guilty in the magistrates' court but then, at trial, plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, I will receive less of a reduction in sentence than if I had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first place. That is exactly what has happened here. She could have, in the magistrates' court, pleaded not guilty to child destruction but indicated that she would plead guilty to the less serious offence. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
That's utterly ridiculous IMHO. The Judge has said her lawyers had indicated the other offence at the Magistrates stage, but it wasn't there to be pled to then. Seems rather cake and eat it by the CPS to charge a maximalist offence then say that because you didn't plead guilty to an other one you weren't charged with then you get a longer sentence.
Anyway, we're going around in circles now, but I hope this gets overturned on appeal. Though I'm not sure how long appeals take or if she'd have finished her sentence by then anyway.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
Indeed. The French tend to regard themselves, for instance, and despite all the street demos, as a "middle class society", and have not compromised on culture and intellect towards the lowest common denonimator, as Britain, America, and other English-speaking countries have since the 1990's, also retaining higher social mobility and equality in the process.
However, and at the same time, they have a very serious problem with both ethnic integration and chauvinist ethnonationalism, and are often less accepting of minorities than the English-speaking countries above.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
The Mail's hatred of Sir Keir is off the charts. Why? I don't remember them being this hostile to Blair or even Corbyn, and certainly not Brown, for whom Dacre had a significant soft spot. Deep down I suspect it's all about Boris - Sir Keir is a mere projection for all the disappointment Boris brought them but which is just too painful to acknowledge.
Its readership skews old, even more so than for other papers, and it's the old who still give the Tories a voting intention lead. So I think it's largely reflecting the bias of its readers, who clearly fear a change of government.
Surely sentencing should be based on whether you pled guilty to that which you are convicted of at the first opportunity?
Not whether you pled guilty to that which are were charged with at the first opportunity?
Even if what you were charged with initially is not what you are convicted of?
Why does whether you plead guilty or not matter when it comes to sentencing? Surely it ought to be whether you are found guilty or not that matters.
Because you've not put the government, victims, witnesses, juries, legal aid budget et al through the cost and trauma of a lengthy trial.
That's fair enough, but have you any idea how the Judge can hold against her the fact she pled not guilty to a crime she's not been convicted of?
It seems to me it was the CPS who dragged this out, not her, by not originally accepting the plea her lawyers had originally suggested and then changing their minds.
If she's eligible for HDC, and I think she should be, then she's going to be out in seven months.
It may be that the Court of Appeal would agree with you, but it looks to me like the judge has simply followed the Sentencing Guidelines as required by law. They are clear that the maximum reduction is only available if you plead guilty in the magistrates' court. In this case she did not, nor did she indicate that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge suggested by her barrister. Had she done so, she would have received a suspended sentence.
What sentencing guidelines as required by law, when the Judge has specifically said there are no sentencing guidelines?
The sentencing guidelines for the reduction in sentence to be applied for a guilty plea. Those apply to all offences. So, although the judge was on his own in determining sentence, he was required to follow the guidelines on the reduction to be applied for a guilty plea.
Where in the sentencing guidelines to be applied for a guilty plea does it say you should be penalised for pleading not guilty to a crime you are never convicted of?
She could have indicated to the magistrates that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
If I am charged with murder and plead not guilty in the magistrates' court but then, at trial, plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, I will receive less of a reduction in sentence than if I had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first place. That is exactly what has happened here. She could have, in the magistrates' court, pleaded not guilty to child destruction but indicated that she would plead guilty to the less serious offence. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
That's utterly ridiculous IMHO. The Judge has said her lawyers had indicated the other offence at the Magistrates stage, but it wasn't there to be pled to then. Seems rather cake and eat it by the CPS to charge a maximalist offence then say that because you didn't plead guilty to an other one you weren't charged with then you get a longer sentence.
Anyway, we're going around in circles now, but I hope this gets overturned on appeal. Though I'm not sure how long appeals take or if she'd have finished her sentence by then anyway.
No, he didn't say they indicated it at the magistrates stage. He said they indicated it at the trial preparation hearing, which is the first hearing in the Crown Court. And the sentencing guidelines aren't set by the CPS, so this is absolutely not them having their cake and eating it.
It is always open to a defendant to say, in the magistrates' court, that they plead not guilty to the offence charged but guilty to a lesser offence based on the same facts. Indeed, her lawyer could have offered that as a plea bargain to the CPS before this got to the magistrates' court.
OT. I think OGH is right. A real danger for Rishi is being portrayed as "weak" by Starmer. Having a fight with Boris - a rapidly fading force anyway - helps to rebut that charge. He will have seen how badly John Major was damaged by Blair in the run up to 97.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
The Mail's hatred of Sir Keir is off the charts. Why? I don't remember them being this hostile to Blair or even Corbyn, and certainly not Brown, for whom Dacre had a significant soft spot. Deep down I suspect it's all about Boris - Sir Keir is a mere projection for all the disappointment Boris brought them but which is just too painful to acknowledge.
Its readership skews old, even more so than for other papers, and it's the old who still give the Tories a voting intention lead. So I think it's largely reflecting the bias of its readers, who clearly fear a change of government.
Assuming Starmer is able to form a government, I'd expect there would be enough budget goodies for the elderly to reassure many of the old, and you'd see the Mail tone it down as their reader's status quo bias would see many of them switch to support the [then Labour] government.
There's been a lot said about the Tory bias among the elderly, but I suspect that is actually a status quo/incumbent government bias, and so we could see large changes in this age group's voting intention if Starmer forms a government and it's reassuringly tedious.
This is not only bollocks, but it is actually the reality of Sunak's Britain.
The Mail's hatred of Sir Keir is off the charts. Why? I don't remember them being this hostile to Blair or even Corbyn, and certainly not Brown, for whom Dacre had a significant soft spot. Deep down I suspect it's all about Boris - Sir Keir is a mere projection for all the disappointment Boris brought them but which is just too painful to acknowledge.
Because after 13 years even the Daily Mail has grasped that you can't talk about Gordon Brown / Labour when trying the blame elsewhere...
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
OT. I think OGH is right. A real danger for Rishi is being portrayed as "weak" by Starmer. Having a fight with Boris - a rapidly fading force anyway - helps to rebut that charge. He will have seen how badly John Major was damaged by Blair in the run up to 97.
Putting "a bit of stick about" has always been popular within the Tory party.
Hope you're all having a lovely day. The Daily Mail is a comic, I read the Beano when I was a kid. Speaking of which, this real Google search made me chuckle.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
Shrinking and warming of Antarctic deep ocean waters has 'far reaching consequences' for global climate https://phys.org/news/2023-06-antarctic-deep-ocean-consequences-global.html ...Antarctic Bottom Water is the coldest, densest water mass on the planet, and it plays a crucial role in regulating the ocean's ability to store heat and capture carbon; 90 percent of human-induced global heating and almost a third of the extra carbon released since the start of the industrial revolution has been absorbed by the ocean.
A new study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, presents observational evidence from the Weddell Sea in Antarctica showing that these waters have shrunk by 20 percent over the past 30 years, while shallower waters warmed at a rate five times higher than the rest of the global ocean.
The research from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of Southampton is the first observational evidence that long-term changes to the winds and sea ice are influencing bottom water production in the Weddell Sea—one of the largest producers of dense bottom water.
Dr. Alessandro Silvano from the University of Southampton, who is a co-author of the study, says, "The shrinking of deep waters in Antarctica can have far reaching consequences, from reducing the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon associated with human activities to decreasing the oxygen supply to abyssal waters, affecting deep ecosystems."
"We used to think that changes in the deep ocean could only occur over centuries. But these key observations from the Weddell Sea show that changes in the dark abyss can take place over just a few decades."..
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Comments
I knew that European Royalty is very incestuous, but I didn't realise they were that closely related.
Pagans said that it showed that prayers to the State Gods worked. The army carried out the necessary sacrifices, and the Gods responded. Christians, OTOH, put the rescue down to prayers made by Christian soldiers.
The curiosity is that there were not supposed to be any Christian soldiers. Soldiers had to both sacrifice to the State Gods, and to the Emperor as a Deity, something which Christians refused to do. So, were Roman officers operating a kind of Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy towards Christians in the army?
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
I believe Anne Boleyn had an extra finger though of course that gene would have died out with QEI.
She didn't plead guilty to anything in the Magistrates Court as all charges before the Magistrates Court were dropped.
How can the Judge reasonably hold against someone the fact they did not plead guilty to any charges at Magistrates Court when every charge before the Magistrates Court has been dropped?
As noted in his remarks, there are no sentencing guidelines for this particular offence.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
My constituency is Cork South West, which stretches from the tips of the Beara and Mizen peninsulas to Kinsale to the south of Cork city. I would hazard a guess that self-styled "Goleen TD" Michael Collins has a higher level of support in the west of the constituency than the east.
If particularly local connections are important to voters then they can vote for candidates who present themselves accordingly.
Selling the KF-21 to the Saudis must be the goal for the Koreans (if the US will let them).
(Just a shame they are still ultimately unleashed on society; it's only delaying harm)
Seems to go completely against all logic and natural justice. And again, it seems the experts on the BBC are confused by this too.
I'd love to see it written down in any guidelines anywhere that it should be held against anyone for not pleading guilty to a crime they are never ultimately convicted of. IANAL but I am extraordinarily sceptical that is in any guideline, any where.
38 seats.
Lib Dems: 54.6% - 34 seats (from 34 candidates)
Conservatives: 29.4% - 0 seats (from 38 candidates)
Greens: 10.5% - 4 seats (from 15 candidates)
Labour: 4.8% - 0 seats (from 13 candidates)
The trauma will likely be with her longer than her sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Coke,_8th_Earl_of_Leicester
His hands are not shown in his official portrait.
From the article:
""However, even so, wage rises continue to lag behind inflation."
According to the ONS, pay when adjusted for inflation fell by 1.3% in the three months to April."
I mean, if you asked anyone... anyone in the world....
"Would you rather live in a country:
a) That respected the rule of law, had democratic institutions, and you had a say in the running of the country and relative freedom to go where you wanted and do what you wanted; OR
b) That told you what to do and think for every minute of your life and you had no chance of ever being asked your own opinions."
How many people would truthfully answer (b)?
(There would be some of course. Some people do want to be told what to do - but it'd be no where near a majority)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/R-v.-Foster-sentencing-remarks-12.6.23.pdf
Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.
Sailors, being somewhat superstitious and sentimental about everything except human beings, did sometimes get attached to these animals and refuse to slaughter them. The job of keeping the poultry had to be rotated very frequently for this reason. I recall learning at BRNC about a particularly cherished pig that was fed so much it died of obesity off the coast of China.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
The charges that were filed at the Magistrates stage were subsequently dropped. How is it then her responsibility to plead guilty at Magistrates to charges that were never filed at that stage?
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/30/mps-vote-to-continue-abortion-pills-by-post-scheme-in-england
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
The country at the top of that table is now in recession, partly as a result of its dependence on exports...
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
A colourful life in general, it can safely be said..
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
So because the CPS screwed up and put the wrong charge before the Magistrates, thus denying her the opportunity to plead guilty to the right charge, she should be penalised for that?
Its the CPS's responsibility to put the right charge or charges before the Magistrates. Every charge before the Magistrates was dropped. Onus on that goes to the CPS, not her.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
Its not possible to plead guilty to a charge before the CPS files those charges. If the CPS changes charges then the earliest opportunity is whenever the change happens, not before that.
If the CPS doesn't want that discount to apply, it shouldn't change charges and should proceed to trial, but it didn't.
A rough equivalent would be a suspect charged with murder, pleads not guilty at the magistrates and is sent to crown court for trial. On day 1 of the trial, her lawyer suggests that she would plead guilty to manslaughter, and the judge decides to either accept that plea and adjourn for sentencing, or proceed with the trial as planned. Either way, the prosecution turns up at the crown court with a lot of work already done, and the judge has to decide on the best course of action in the interests of justice.
I bought the Mail on Sunday and report back it is far far better value for money than the Sunday telegraph I bought two weeks ago. This is not a political point I’m making, just as a read it was far better value. Barely mentioned Trans.
They have serious ambitions.
If the CPS wishes to continue with a murder charge then that's their choice, but the first opportunity is when the charge is filed and if its not been filed and pled to then its not been filed.
"24.For the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, I
sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. Among the many tragedies in this case
is that you did not indicate your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the
magistrates’ court. Had that been done, the sentence of imprisonment that I am
now obliged to pass would in law have been capable of being suspended."
@ChuckGrassley just said he hasn’t read the indictment against Trump because “he’s not a legal analyst.” Dude, you CHAIRED THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR FOUR YEARS.
https://twitter.com/AmoneyResists/status/1668373486744530944
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It’s coming across a bit like attacking and denigrating Boris and his supporters publicly, perhaps the smarter politics is not to be drawn into saying negatives about “your own” so publicly?
The difference between Nadine and all the other useless dicks and fanny Sunak himself will appoint is Rishi’s toads and sycophants don’t have a show called “Friday Night Nads” where guests are frequently asked “Rishi Sunak, not really all that great is he?” Other than that, with her years in public service, Member of parliament, government, nursing and health, Nadine is as much qualified for a contribution to the House of Lords than the majority of Sunakite toads and donors to life peers Sunak will go on and appoint.
So let’s stop saying it was an independent committee decision to reject her, and not Sunak’s, that piece of blatant spin is now clearly blatant lies - especially if Sunak is accepting the credit for his brave and Primeministerial foot down against the Johnson Fan Club! It’s the Primeministers decision at end of day, not committee, especially as it’s a mere obscure admin error for committee to say no, not anything serious easily worked round.
The bottom line is, Sunak and team have created the fight.
Not being a Boris or Nadine fan, I’m absolutely loving it - it is very very funny, but that is exactly the BIG MISTAKE SUNAK HAS MADE - he shouldn’t be obviously loving it himself or even playing this game on side of those who have had it up to the eyebrows with Boris and his coterie, all are ABSOLUTELY LOVING what Rishi has done - 100% of Labour and opposition loving it, 210% of Chris Bryant loving it, Guardian and Mirror etc can barely get there smugness out for loving it so much - but the Conservative Party is supposed to be a broad church and appointments to Lords should be on a basis of some worthiness, not ripping up precedent just to win a bit of oneupmanship in personality politics, as Rishi Sunak has done.
So I disagree with Mikes opinion piece, I think in the bigger picture this is a political error from Number 10, and I have quite conclusive evidence for that view in how the Mail and Express in particular are relaying this narrative from being on Boris side. I would say to Mike Smithson this could be just like a budget, popular for a few days before bad politics in it starts to unravel, for to put The Mail and others in position to take sides in what is factional and personality politics, is an unforced error for a PM.
If the CPS had decided to drop one charge and initiate another, it would be a different matter - but the substitution of the charge was initiated by the defence team, in exchange for the 20% discount in sentence.
Her only opportunity for a suspended sentence, was to have pled guilty to the original charge at the magistrates’ court, and then put forward her mitigating arguments at sentencing - which would have saved a considerable amount of time and money.
If I am charged with murder and plead not guilty in the magistrates' court but then, at trial, plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, I will receive less of a reduction in sentence than if I had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first place. That is exactly what has happened here. She could have, in the magistrates' court, pleaded not guilty to child destruction but indicated that she would plead guilty to the less serious offence. She did not do so. She therefore gets a smaller reduction in sentence.
Anyway, we're going around in circles now, but I hope this gets overturned on appeal. Though I'm not sure how long appeals take or if she'd have finished her sentence by then anyway.
However, and at the same time, they have a very serious problem with both ethnic integration and chauvinist ethnonationalism, and are often less accepting of minorities than the English-speaking countries above.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1668569306940973057?s=20
Disgusting - what about having a national women's week then?
It is always open to a defendant to say, in the magistrates' court, that they plead not guilty to the offence charged but guilty to a lesser offence based on the same facts. Indeed, her lawyer could have offered that as a plea bargain to the CPS before this got to the magistrates' court.
There's been a lot said about the Tory bias among the elderly, but I suspect that is actually a status quo/incumbent government bias, and so we could see large changes in this age group's voting intention if Starmer forms a government and it's reassuringly tedious.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/R-v.-Foster-sentencing-remarks-12.6.23.pdf
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Shrinking and warming of Antarctic deep ocean waters has 'far reaching consequences' for global climate
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-antarctic-deep-ocean-consequences-global.html
...Antarctic Bottom Water is the coldest, densest water mass on the planet, and it plays a crucial role in regulating the ocean's ability to store heat and capture carbon; 90 percent of human-induced global heating and almost a third of the extra carbon released since the start of the industrial revolution has been absorbed by the ocean.
A new study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, presents observational evidence from the Weddell Sea in Antarctica showing that these waters have shrunk by 20 percent over the past 30 years, while shallower waters warmed at a rate five times higher than the rest of the global ocean.
The research from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of Southampton is the first observational evidence that long-term changes to the winds and sea ice are influencing bottom water production in the Weddell Sea—one of the largest producers of dense bottom water.
Dr. Alessandro Silvano from the University of Southampton, who is a co-author of the study, says, "The shrinking of deep waters in Antarctica can have far reaching consequences, from reducing the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon associated with human activities to decreasing the oxygen supply to abyssal waters, affecting deep ecosystems."
"We used to think that changes in the deep ocean could only occur over centuries. But these key observations from the Weddell Sea show that changes in the dark abyss can take place over just a few decades."..