Options
A Crime of a Law – politicalbetting.com
A Crime of a Law – politicalbetting.com
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.” (LBJ)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So if they turn up without the aforesaid English police yes, you should call them.
Edit - also, it occurs to me that if they attempt that they will be making laws for England, which would breach a reserved matter. So either they must have given assurances on this point before the bill was submitted for Royal Assent, or they might find it overturned in the courts on a different point from the one @Cyclefree raises.
Brexit has increased the risks of worker exploitation (who could have guessed a project backed enthusiastically by dark money and rogue capital would have had this effect, eh?)
https://www.salon.com/2023/12/10/trump-derangement-syndrome-is-real--but-its-not-what-they-say-it-is/
I wonder if The Kitchen Cabinet will ever realise that his hurling around of epithets like ‘fascist’or accusing his many critics of mental illness are a sign that he himself has a screw loose?
Trump of course has not so much a screw as a whole houseful of them loose, judging by his latest tirades on Truth Social…
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
https://www.islandecho.co.uk/swimming-lanes-introduced-to-facilitate-free-cross-solent-crossings/
"REVOLUTIONARY £2.2M 'BANANA FLOAT FLEET' TO REPLACE TROUBLED ISLE OF WIGHT FLOATING BRIDGE"
https://www.iwradio.co.uk/news/local-community-news/revolutionary-2-2m-banana-float-fleet-to-replace-troubled-isle-of-wight-floating-bridge/
What do you think of the opinion, lawyers? @Cyclefree, @DavidL, @TSE and others?
He’s also a flag shagger.
I await my visit from Police Scotland.
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
It does not feel as though this passes muster, as the general defences seem to come down to 'we must do something' and 'it'll be fine, stop worrying'.
https://twitter.com/EdinburghTrams/status/1774693178769072537?t=2SLjD_GzhLn1zMGRq7PKzA&s=19
(Edinburgh Trams are much maligned for having no ability to remove cars blocking the tram tracks - the council only have a crane which would be dangerous to use under the power lines)
I am staying at Trump’s hotel.
This was the only once I could find. The law could save lives apparently.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/03/21/scotlands-new-hate-crime-law-isnt-a-threat-free-speech-save-life-20506135/
Lock him up
https://youtu.be/x6XEVvVRB_4?si=2B4RbtkXXaBMXNJe
Unless, of course, Trump runs out of cash some other way and defaults on his mortgages, but the adoring MAGA worshippers pumping cash into his Truth Social nonsense seems to preclude that.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
Privatisation is not so much the issue than lax regulation and allowing these companies to be acquired and effectively taken private.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
There is plenty of blame to go around with what's happening. But we are where we are.
My big worry is I don't see any serious thought given to how we really improve matters. Nationalisation may be the answer, but given the dismal performance of historical and indeed current nationalised water entities that seems unlikely. Local authority management is pretty much out both due to the size of these companies (with rare exceptions like South Staffs or Northumbrian Water) and the impending implosion of multiple local authorities.
So some radical and imaginative thinking, using in-depth knowledge of what's going on and a clear-eyed understanding of what we want is required.
Alas, we are stuck with Sunak and Starmer being sniped at by followers of Mogg and Corbyn.
He's kind of missing the point on Thames Water. First off, "wipe out the share and bondholders" clearly ought to happen. Whether that's enough to create a viable company going forward is another matter. Secondly, the people who loaded the company up with debt to pay themselves big dividends left the scene years ago. And apparently setting a time bomb ticking under a major utility is OK.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/31/evertons-financial-woes-continue-as-loss-doubles-to-89m
Going concern issues as well.
Moshiri hasn't provided any "letter of support" regarding Going Concern in the latest Everton accounts
https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1774508830984200307
Belated Easter greetings to all and another day which has dawned fine in my part of the world but whether it will remain as pleasant is open to question.
As usual, I'm about 16 threads behind the curve so a quick catch up - anyone who thinks MRP seat projections are a sound basis for political betting investments probably also thinks a morning dip in the Thames a nice healthy way to start the day.
At the moment, credibility is staring down reality. The polling figures are there and consistent and yet no one seems quite to believe or trust them. I'm all for healthy scepticism but poll after poll suggests Labour are well ahead (15-20 points) and the combined Lab/LD/Green number of 58-60 sits in front of the Con/Ref number of 35-37.
What of the Reform vote? As @Sean_Fear pointed out, and according to R&W, roughly two thirds of that share is 2019 Conservative voters with the rest coming from ex-Brexit party supporters and those who didn't vote last time.
Assuming Reform are on 12%, IF all the former Conservatives returned to the fold, you'd see Reform back to 4% and the Conservatives at 31-33% (in other words more akin to the Conservative-Referendum split in 1997).
However, all the evidence shows only one third of the Reform vote would go back to the Conservatives in the event of there being no Reform candidate in their constituency (as far as I am aware, Tice intends to run a full slate of candidates) so that would leave Reform on 8% and the Conservatives in the high twenties.
Roughly a sixth of the Reform vote say they would vote Labour absent a Reform candidate with half staying at home so this notion a wave of ex-Reform voters will come over the hill to save the Tories doesn't stand up to evidence at this time. Indeed, I'd argue the leadership of Reform (Tice, Farage) are essentially small state tax cutting Thatcherites yet the Reform voters are more in the Boris Johnson mould of wanting to see plenty of public money in WWC areas. That will probably be what does for Reform after the election when I suspect some of the leadership will move back over to a Badenoch or Braverman-led opposition.
We just have to hope that Starmer gets sufficient majority not to be beholden to the hard left. I feel little enthusiasm for labour, which is why I won’t vote next time, however Rachel Reeves does seem to be competent.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
I can't help but feel blocked drains on the national road network, irritating though they are, probably help water companies by diverting water away from the sewage network.
Defending the legislation on homelessness and admitting he hasn’t even read it.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774702734047883410?s=61
Regulation is a dirty word (apposite in terms of Thames Water however). For example, I'm a big supporter of an active and properly regulated public and private property rental market. We need a strong rental sector as people's circumstances vary and not everyone wants or can afford to buy outright. Renting is a step forward for many but the private rental sector is a disgrace with rapacious landlords encouraging a new generation of slums on top of which the monstrosity of HMOs where in London 12-20 people live in a 3-bedroom semi which is effectively dormitory accommodation for construction workers from all over the world.
Yes, it's not slavery but it's not a dignified or civilised way for people to live in the 21st century.
https://www.ft.com/content/a225cb7d-ccdd-495d-b7f1-a8124129b8bf
Blocked drains certainly do us cyclists no favours.
Also you are clearly yet to read a BJO post.
The other issue with the presentation of MRP is that a tight win gets presented as a win. Much like FPTP. This looks like a neat quick'n'dirty kludge;
Across the trio of MRPs released this year, only 460 (70%) seats have held the same projected winner on all three, with nearly a third showing a different winner on at least one (shown in paler tones) and seven even producing different results each time (light grey).
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1774502392282661255
The poor and old will have to receive less.
The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
Both seem predicated on cutting taxes for the wealthy in the hope the extra funds will "trickle down" to the rest of the economy. The evidence for that is flimsy at best and the other side of the "supply side" reforms usually involves having to make deep cuts in public spending to offset the revenue lost from cutting higher tax rates.
As I recall, Truss also wanted to throw public money at helping soften the rises in energy bills so the public finances were being battered from both sides (bit like a nice piece of fish). Less Trussite and more like Haddockism.
Let's see whether and how they avoid that
The whole thing looks like an April Fool's joke on Police Scotland
The former is already evident (the "rich" and the "pensioners" being singled out) and the latter is probably going to be an integral part of the policies of all parties.
In politics, unfortunately, you can only move at a speed commensurate with public opinion. Thatcher, to her credit, tried to persuade the eelctorate of the validity of her positions by argument. Sunak and Starmer allow the public to lead them and as you say no one is making the case for living within our means or articulating the hard options.
This is the blogger crossing the border.
About to receive a restraining order.
The Scottish minister for hate crimes didn't want to talk about the criminal aspects of abuse etc towards JK Rowling.
The UN bloke in Gaza (BTW I am not unsympathetic and don't want his job) seemed remarkably well informed and full of opinions about the evils perpetrated by the IDF, but an absolute blank stone wall, both on facts and opinions, on the subject of Hamas's sub-optimal actions, and in particular whether it had interactions with Gaza hospital sites.
The impression that the UN and its agencies are not neutral actors is strong.
The Night Mail could be renamed "On Police bail".
To anyone in Scotland with religious beliefs - it's a load of nonsense you daft bunch.
'Was that English?'
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
In any case she certainly seems to think there are limits to free speech. Luckily for her she's rich enough to wield the big stick of the law within previous legal structures.
https://tinyurl.com/38jkv8s7
The Opinion considers the Act in some detail. The principal author, Mr Dunlop KC, is the Dean of Faculty of the Scottish Bar*. He has not, to my knowledge, been an Advocate Depute responsible for marking controversial cases nor does he have, to my knowledge, much direct knowledge or experience of dealing with criminal proceedings. He is an acknowledged expert in regulatory and administrative law as well as human rights. His Junior in this matter has similar experience and lack of criminal experience.
I have 2 reservations about his opinion. Firstly, how the Act will be interpreted, at least as far as prosecution is concerned, will be determined by the policies and decisions of Crown Office. If the intention is that certain groups, specifically those advocating controversial positions on the transgender issue, be held accountable by this law I think that some of the Opinions as to what is thought to be an offence and what is not may not be agreed with.
Secondly, whilst he may well prove to be correct as to the view that a court or even a jury might take at the end of the day it is the threat of prosecution, successful or otherwise, that has the chilling effect on public discourse. I agree with @Cyclefree's observations on that.
*I am also a member of the Scottish bar and am currently a serving Advocate Depute but well below the pay grade of those responsible for policy.
Phrasing that in an interview in a way that doesn't even more anti IDF is probably impossible so you end up skirting round the issue...
Now as to those who receive the largest amounts of government payments and services - the old and the poor - they will have to do what anyone else does when their income isn't as high as they want that is adapt to their lesser means.
How much they will need to adapt depends on what 'proportion of pain' they have to accept.
Not to mention many oldies are among the affluent and as a group dominate the asset rich.
The government was predicted to spend £341bn on social protection, £245bn on health and £43bn on personal social services in the last year:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45814459
I'm not sure how that equates to the 'social contract is broken'.
As for workers we currently have full employment - something which for those whose formative years were after 1975 would never have been expected to happen.
And which, if those who predict the mass economic disruption of AI are correct, might be looked back on as a brief interlude between periods of high unemployment.
(But the greater substance of the criticism of this bad act is the 'chilling' effect on ordinary people who will be rendered doubtful in expressing views, and in the keeping of records by police of non-criminal activity in a world where no-one will trust what use will be made of them.)
I think we can rely on Wings Over Scotland and others to test all this out in court.
My concern is that someone like me will have a few vexatious complaints on my record and I will never know about it given the lack of investigation. The sensible approach will be to do a subject access request* every few months to check, and certainly before I go for a new job/flat/promotion etc. This will just swamp the police with even more paperwork, and possibly backfire if it means they subsequently open an investigation as I keep bringing attention to my online activity.
Hmmm.
* I assume this will work.
https://labourlist.org/2024/04/labour-lib-dem-bar-charts-campaigning-general-election-2024-rural-seats/ .
That in turn has prompted calls this morning from two senior national Labour people promising help. So much in politics is about snowball effects.